User talk:Mark Arsten/Archive the seventh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


FYI: Glee vandal back, though just on talk pages so far

Mark, I thought I'd let you know that the IP who had previously vandalized "A Katy or a Gaga" is back, but because the page is still protected has posted requests on the article's talk page that I do the edits about the song. The first request came from IP, an IP you blocked for one week on December 23 (and thus the block expired 12 days prior to the new post) and the subsequent ones from; the final one, just posted, is a copy of the first, and is quite rambling (and may, for all I know, be repeating Care Bears material).

There hasn't been any damage, and posts thus far have just been to the talk page—though when I went to look just now, Samjohnzon had deleted them all with an edit summary of "Removed spam/nonsensical edit requests", so things may change. I'll keep an eye out and let you know. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, he sure is persistent! Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
And again as I tried to engage in a friendly but firm manner, but now we're getting another copy of the same post put up by the two earlier IPs, plus it's spreading to another (fortunately protected article's) talk page. Thanks as always. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I protected the talk page that he keeps hitting. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate Edit Summary

Hi Mark! Is this edit summary nuke-worthy? [1] Thanks! 01:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electric Wombat (talkcontribs)

Well, I guess that counts as a BLP violation, so I suppose it can be nuked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! (That's like the 3rd thank I've sent your way this eve?) Electric Wombat (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
lol, my notifications keep lighting up tonight! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Roy Maloy

Sorry, me yet again. Not long ago you blocked Roy Maloy as a sock of, which was helpful but doesn't seem to have put an end to the problems at Roy Maloy, where various IPs continue to attempt to restore a previous version of the article. Several of them (,, and, going back a bit, seem to be fairly close; would a rangeblock be likely to work here? Or should I ask for semi-protection? Or neither of the above? Any advice welcome! And thanks for all that you do. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember this article. Hmm, let's try pending changes here an see how it goes. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, hadn't thought of that possibility. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Burklo

I noticed you deleted Jon Burklo. However if you look at the least of teams he played at, it includes the Wilmington Hammerheads who play in USL Pro (formerly called USLSecond Divison) who have always been listed as fully professional at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. How then does the article get deleted? Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted because there was a consensus among participants that it hadn't been proven that he met the WP:GNG or the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline. Several of the participants in the discussion specifically based their argument on an inability to find a reliable source that demonstrated that he had played in a fully professional league. If you can provide one, it might be possible to have the page undeleted. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
How about a match report from 2008 in a game against the Richmond Kickers - [2] - played the full match. A newspaper article mention he scored against Minnesota Thunder - [3]. A yellow card in a match against Crystal Palace Baltimore - [4] There seems little doubt he appeard for Wilmington several times during the 2008 season. Not sure why no one brought it up during AFD ... a lack of familiarity with US soccer? They seemed more interested in his Finnish lack of appearances. What's next step? Re-open just-closed AFD? Deletion Review? Something less bureaucratic? Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've reopened the Afd, so you can comment there now. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've done so. Digging more, I think the confusion may be because the US media and match reports always listed him as John Burklo, while Wilmington themselves listed him as Jonathan Burklo, so "Jon Burklo" didn't Google well. Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Hey Mark long time, thanks for protecting Ryback, it really needed it. However I think you might have thought it was only its first time being protected. You can see the former titles protection history here, which is very lengthy. This is far from the first time this page has been attacked by BLP vandalism, so judging by the protection period, it looks like a longer page protection period is warranted. STATic message me! 10:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, I've extended the protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Look into a page

Hello Mark. Happy New Year! Just wondering if you can look into (and protect again) Avengers: Age of Ultron? The previous protected ended Jan. 12, and, to no surprise, immediate IP vandalism occurred on the page. And this was just changing some content here or there, the vandalism was a bit crude. Sometimes I wonder if these people just wait around for the exact moment to do this... Anyways, given the nature of the film (as I've brought to you before), this won't be an isolated incident. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have run now, but I'll look into that later. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The suspect IP has been blocked, so I don't know if it still warrants a reblock at the moment, but you are free to look and judge yourself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, looks like more of the same so I've re-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sure I'll be back on April 13. Lol - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion User Ninham9 Gary12

Hello Mark Arsten. Thanks for removing the pages made by Ninham9 Gary12. Could you restore the following pages though? I fixed them already.. Eetion elia, Erionota torus, Hidari irava, Shirozua jonasi, Protantigius superans, Rapala caerulea, Satyrium herzi, Satyrium latior. Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)‎

Sorry, seems you already did. My bad.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I bulk deleted all his creations and then I looked at you deleted contribs and restored all those pages. Let me know if you have any more issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Nope, great work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Adolescence article

Mark, regarding this edit, you had it right the first time. Look at everything that IP messed up, including references. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Ok, sorry about that, I didn't look too closely. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that it was an honest mistake and that you likely were trying not to get involved in an edit dispute. That IP is likely to return, though; has some POV about use of the word teenager being negative, and seems to think that adolescent and teenager automatically mean the same thing when, like I stated, they clearly don't. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I take it that you mean adolescent and teenager; yes, while they typically mean the same thing, they don't always mean the same thing; for example, a pubertal 10-year-old girl may be considered an adolescent because she is going through puberty and the psychological and/or social aspects that come along with it, but she is obviously not yet a teenager. The lead discusses these matters, and I left a note in the edit history for the IP regarding that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandal only account

FYI: Blocked user, User:Rectangularfetus, is back as User:Rectangularfetus2. Thought you should know. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 03:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, got him. At least he makes it obvious! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Salt/promo user

Hi Mark. Can you take a look at Jay Royce and its creator? INeverCry 03:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, sure, I've taken care of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated. I happen to have lost my own protect button a while ago...and some other handy buttons... Face-wink.svg INeverCry 04:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's too bad :( Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen

New request at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen#New requests. --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like Anthony has declined it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Republic Of China

Hi Mark. I'm a bit new to the Wiki community, but I wish to kindly ask if you could please semi-protect the page on the Republic of China. I fear the controversial politics it has can lead to vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixingtheworld (talkcontribs) 05:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, I think the page is actually semi-protected already. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please restore the deleted page: Sahil Anand

He is an upcoming Indian actor. Ref:, and — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit Gosain (talkcontribs) 08:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you reply? Shobhit Gosain Talk 18:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a few things going on right now, I'll look into this soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, just checked it out. The article was deleted because it had no sources. You are free to create a new article on the subject if you include reliable sources (WP:RS) in it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Types of Motorcycles

Hi, I have been contributing since 2007, and have started a number of articles from scratch. I edit both "intellectual" articles (e.g.) on Law and History, and on "non-intellectual" articles on topics such as motorcycles. I have had problems on a particular Wikipage, namely Types of Motorcycles. In recent times, I have made a number of contributions, which I sincerely believe to be intelligent, thoughtful and bona fide; yet editor Dennis Bratland immediately cancels my edits and accuses me of "vandalism", "disruption" and "edit warring". I now see that you appear to have sided with Dennis Bratland and have blocked (pro tem) any further edits. Dennis Bratland may have more Barnstars than Idi Amin had medals on his chest, but does that mean he should always get support from Wiki admins, regardless? Please advise! Arrivisto (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I'm not choosing sides here. My protection was solely intended to stop the reverting and prompt talk-page discussion. Please try to come to a consensus on the talk page, if you have trouble doing that, consider asking for help at a relevant WikiProject or opening an WP:RfC. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

About deletion of page on Black Sun Empire

BSE is quite popular drum and bass band. They are very prolific. They have about 200k listeners on ( and about 80k likes on facebook ( They have about 200 videos and 25'000 subscribers on their YouTube channel with their music ( They have 55 releases on beatport, and are for example one of the artist on "UKF Drum and Bass 2013" album, UKF drum and bass being a 1.4 million subscriber YouTube music channel (most popular for the genre).

Please restore the article on them. Iivmok (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have the page restored, can you provide reliable sources that discuss it in depth? See WP:GNG for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I linked to 3 resources above. Searching for "Black Sun Empire" on YouTube will give 258'000 results ( They have a lot of listeners (200 000 on as I previously stated), top track on YouTube has 3.2 million listens ( Their website ( under the "Crew" link provides information about the artists if it's that what you are asking for. What do you mean by "that discuss it in depth"? Iivmok (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
We have a very specific definition of "Reliable source". It needs to be independent media coverage, so YouTube and Facebook etc. don't count. Usually magazines or newspapers are what we look for with this kind of topic. "Discuss it in depth" generally means multiple articles written about the topic. Let me know if you have any more questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to ask

I explained at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 10#File:Fosters intertitle.jpg why File:Fosters intertitle.jpg should not be removed, but why did you removed that file? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was a fair use image that had not been used in any articles for more than one week. If you would like to add it back to an article, let me know and I'll undelete it. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Question: Subject wants the article deleted?

Hello, I have a question. User:Daneady (contribs) (who does not have a user or talk page) is requesting the deletion of an article that is apparently about himself, Dan Eady, which has existed since 2009. I have no idea if Daneady really is Dan Eady. They have replaced the content with their request and added a link to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source. I was unable to find anything except for this AfD discussion that details what is to be done in this situation. The AfD directly points to the article being correctly sourced as a reason for keeping it. However, Dan Eady (before Daneady's edits) did not have inline citations. Most, if not all, of the previously provided sources are not very reliable or are broken. Daneady has not made substantial contributions to the page, which of course disqualifies it for CSD G7; and it is not "new and completely unsourced", so PROD:BLP does not apply either. What should be done? Should I open an AfD? I would appreciate any help. Thank you! TCMemoire 03:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, we could take his word for it and just nominate it for deletion and see how that turns out. Notability looks a bit thin so there's a good chance it would work. We could have him contact OTRS to confirm his identity, but I'm not sure we even need him to do that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I just found this at the BLP page: "If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion." So it does seem appropriate to nominate it for deletion. I do agree that verifying his identity is unnecessary, since the article is already poorly cited and written. TCMemoire 03:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I have just nominated the article for deletion here. I will also notify the user. Thank you for your help. TCMemoire 04:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Protection

Hello, Mark Arsten. I was wondering if you could fix the protection of Falkland Islands as you were the last user to edit protections to the article. Specifically, could you set Visibility to enable instead of disable. Especially since the edit war was to the article and not the Feedback Page? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My "friend"

He appears to be back and he's got registered sockpuppets now. See

Someone opened a CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zarbon regarding ActionFigureLover, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've rangeblocked the IPs. I would have indeffed the accounts but since they're already blocked and a CU has been requested I'll wait for the results. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If they're quacking, I don't see why you don't take care of it now so I don't have to endure this idiot mucking about again in 12 hours.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I tried opening a new case with Dragonron as the sockmaster but it was closed without any investigative action taken.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it can be hard to get them to run sleeper checks unless you're dealing with a really notorious vandal. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Part of the decline this time around was allegedly because of how you closed the Zarbon case and I don't know what to do. This guy's going to be back because you can't block the whole network.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

He's back and his latest IP is (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, looks like it's stale now though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Stewards know about him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, I've been having issues whenever he leaves messages at User talk:X96lee15 because X96lee15 will revert me whenever I delete them, claiming I am violating WP:TPO because I'm editing someone else's messages. Do you think you could have a word with him?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd probably just drop the issue about his talk page for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Looks like, but you could probably narrow it down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this guy is Wiki-star (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started up WP:ANI#Wiki-star regarding this user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it's probably best to talk to the checkuser who handled the last SPI about a range block, they'll be able to make a more informed decision than I can about how large of a range we're dealing with. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I spoke with DoRD on IRC but he was wary of doing anything because he believed there would be a decent level of collateral damage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I guess that makes sense then. Checkusers are often unwilling to "nuke it from orbit", so to speak. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I also got in touch with the stewards, because this guy is on multiple projects, but they are also wary of range blocking in general. It was never a problem for me, but look where that got me. I sent an email off to the abuse contact as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Motor Stories Deletion

Hi Mark, I just wanted to touch base with you about the Motor Stories page I created which was then deleted. The wikipedia page I created was based on a blog I wrote about the dime novel series Motor Stories. I would like to contribute to the general knowledge about the Motor Stories series, but the basic information can not be altered. I changed some of the sentence structure from the blog article, but the facts need to remain the same. If you could give me any insight as to why the page was deleted and how I can get a permanent article on wikipedia I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you RachelLee04 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be possible to have the page restored, can you provide reliable sources that discuss it in depth? See WP:GNG for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any original research done on the series other than the work done by myself in a blog article I wrote. Some of the topics I cover in the blog were sited in the original wikipedia page (namely the information on Wallace Cook). But other than that the page was primarily discussing the stories of the series which are no longer copyrighted.

RachelLee04 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, but I don't think it can be undeleted at this point then. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Andrew Orvedahl

Hi Mark, There are plenty of third-party sources that claim notability for this particular comedian. Would it be possible to reinstate the Wikipedia page?

I can provide more sources if necessary.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since it was deleted via WP:PROD, I can restore it for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Apologies for taking up some of your time on RfPP. I was responding to Begoon's reverts, rather than the IP's initial edits, assuming they were reverts of very recent material, as the IP has edited many pages recently (although frankly the days blurred for me lately, which may be it). It's somewhat worrying those edits hung around for such a time. Thanks for the explanation on RfPP. CMD (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, let me know if he turns up again. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I hadn't been around much to notice these, and reverted that bunch of fairly old edits when I did have some time yesterday. I agree it's worrying they "hung around" but those articles only have a few people who take much notice. I can see how CMD thought it was recent stuff, given I did it all at once like that. That said, I just reverted 5 more from today, linked and commented at the RFPP section. These are the annoying ones, I know, long term socking from an SPA on his little group of articles. Hard to know what to do with it really, but he doesn't deserve to be allowed to run everyone around like this. Thanks for the other, unrelated SPI thing yesterday, too, by the way - we should stop meeting like this... Begoontalk 13:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

List of referees and assistats

Hey Mark , check this list of the referees and assistats for the FIFA World Cup 2014 List of referees and asistants . Ionel141 (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2014.

Is this in reference to something specific? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Why a global block?

I see you blocked the page types of motorcycles against all edits--not just edits by the two editors who seem to be engaged in an edit war. I did not see where that request for a block was discussed. Could you point me to the discussion? With thanks, ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 16:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It was protected after a request on WP:RFPP. Unfortunately the software doesn't allow us to only prevent the warring editors from editing the page, we have to lock out everyone. If there's a specific edit you would like to be made, you can ask on the talk page and an Admin will likely make it for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I see the block expires tomorrow. These particular edits have no urgency, and it has been useful to discuss them on the talk page before making them, another editor is already onboard. So I'll just wait until the page protection comes off.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 19:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of

Hi. I'm confused. Thanks for blocking IP at 20:20 o'clock. But s/he vandalized Sleep (again!) at 20:54. Shouldn't be possible?  :/ --Hordaland (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm showing this for that IP's contribs today. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (del/undel) 20:20, 15 January 2014 Mark Arsten (talk | contribs | block) blocked (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ({{schoolblock}}) (unblock | change block)
  • (del/undel) 19:54, 15 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-329)‎ . . Sleep ‎ (fixed)
  • (del/undel) 17:11, 15 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . Sleep ‎ (fixed)
  • (del/undel) 17:08, 15 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,723)‎ . . Ocelot ‎ (Fixed a few errors) (Tag: categories removed)
  • (del/undel) 16:46, 15 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . 20th century ‎ (fixed)
  • (del/undel) 16:40, 15 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-5)‎ . . 20th century ‎
  • (del/undel) 16:38, 15 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . 20th century ‎ (fixed)
  • (del/undel) 16:27, 15 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . 20th century ‎
(talk page stalker) @Hordaland: It's the classic confusion between UTC and CET (with CET being one hour ahead of UTC during the winter and two hours during the summer). Selecting UTC for all times displayed on WP (Preferences -> Date and time -> Time zone -> Use Wiki default/UTC) usually solves the problem. Thomas.W talk to me 21:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try that! --Hordaland (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Apropos your llama (above)

My favorite poem by Ogden Nash (1902-1971):

The one-l lama,
He's a priest.
The two-l llama,
He's a beast.
And I will bet
A silk pajama
There isn't any
Three-l lllama.*
(*The author's attention has been called to a type of conflagration known as a three-alarmer.)

And, in re related animals, he wrote:

The Camel has a single hump,
The Dromedary two.
Or else the other way around.
I'm never sure - are you?

--Hordaland (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the poems, reminds me of something my Grandfather would say. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Don Jon

Hi Mark, So you sent me a message about Don Jon. Well I was on set which is why I know that information about production. What should my source be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, per our verifiability policy, we need to be able to independently verify the information. Unfortunately, we can't just take you word for it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect Adrien Broner?

Hi, I saw you semi-protected it until Jan 29th but was giving you a heads-up that I'm watching the page now & will revert vandalism. The mania over his defeat to maidana has subsided & I think the page protection has served its purpose well. Maybe now's the time to let boxing fans who aren't registered work constructively on the article again. Thanks for your consideration, Lemonsdrops (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've placed it under pending changes so anons can contribute. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The policy on PC-1 protection states:

Pending changes may be used to protect articles against:

persistent vandalism violations of the biographies of living persons policy copyright violations

Not sure if you're a boxing fan, but there was a spike in vandalism to his page because he is a very cocky, very arrogant boxing personality. When he lost, it gave "juice" to every wannabe vandal to go and have their petty fun. I assure you now that he is out of the news, no longer a magnet of drama or attention, and he is keeping a low profile in his personal life because of legal troubles he and his lawyers are quietly resolving. Additionally, the text explaining this guideline states Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. I have left gentle notes on the talk pages of two vandals December 19th here and here and I will personally attest and vouch for IP & anon editors WP:AGF until proven wrong since I believe the time the article needed protection was the night of his upset loss plus a week or two extra.

Additionally, the last admin who protected the page did so for only 3 days. Prior to that, the article was never seriously vandalized enough to warrant page protection, ever. His page has been around 3 years and unless you're an admin or a reviewer or a 'crat, the various types of page protection--when used too liberally--create a caste system of editors. In fact, if you look at which class of editors did most of the expansion of the Adrien Broner stub, it was IP editors (probably auto-confirmed, but still...) My point is our wikiproject is having a tough time recruiting workers to assist in improving coverage of boxing articles, in general. Page protection--when not explicitly warranted--portrays anon editors as untrustworthy or incompetent (unless you're a zealous advocate of that controversial guideline which stemmed from the failed flagged revisions). I'd have much preferred 13 more days of semi-protection which was set to expire Jan 29th rather than indefinite implementation of a policy which I hate even worse.

I'm done here. Wikipedia is where I come to get information, not get stressed out over such inconsequential matters of the rights of my fellow untrustworthy/incompetent editors. Lemonsdrops (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think PC is a good choice for articles that have regularly been subject to BLP vandalism, and thus is why I applied it here. If you disagree, you're welcome to take the matter to WP:RFUP to appeal the protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

User keeps removing AfD templates

Special:Contributions/AlexFurman, whom you just reverted on List of Pomodoro Technique software keeps removing the AfD-template. Both Doniago and I have repeatedly tried to communicate to the user that this is not the way to deal with AfD, through messages on their talk-page and through edit-summaries. It's now the seventh time in 98 minutes that they have removed the template. Perhaps a short block is in order to grab their attention and direct them to the proper procedure? Also, for future reference, should this be reported at AIV or ANI? Wasn't sure and noticed you were online, hence me asking here instead. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've blocked him. In the future this could probably go to WP:AN3 or WP:AIV, though you'll likely get a quicker response with the latter. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, good to know for future reference. I'd usually would have just guessed and picked one, but as you happened to be online and had reverted the user as well, figured I'd might as well poke you, especially because you tend to be very quick in responding. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's a tip: if you need an admin right away and are not sure who to ask, look at log of admin actions to see who has been active recently (although the bots clog it up sometimes). This works with deletion and protection too. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a useful link. Though admittedly, with the AIV, your usertalk, Materialscientist's, Kudpung's, WormThatTurned (well, that's more like admin/arb/checkuser/oversighter/OTRSer, but hey) and a couple others' usertalks on my watchlist, I usually don't have to look long to find one. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Now he's made a bad-faith accusation of sockpuppetry on his talk page, along with an unblock request. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I won't rush to unblock him then! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Guy still doesn't seem to have tired from his temper tantrum. Want to bet he'll jump straight back into deleting the template when the block runs out? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Likely sock of Ginsuloft

Ariasroach (contribs, no actual userpage yet). Three edits to their name so far. Two are on Ginsuloft's blocked socks, by changing the page to read as though they're socks of the blocking admin, Tiptoety. Third was to create a category page for "Tiptoety's Sockpuppets". Fact that they know how to create a category within minutes of registering, as well as how to find those specific userpages, makes it very likely they're a sock of someone and considering the targeted pages and the target of their attacking, probably Ginsuloft. WP:DUCK. CSD'ed the category, warned them for vandalism on one of the userpages before I had noticed how suspicious the rest of their contribs are. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Tiptoety got him while you were posting here. Shame about that whole thing, Ginsuloft was a pretty helpful guy back in the day. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yup, was just about to edit this page again because I saw that. Always a shame when helpful people go and behave like trolls or vandals for whatever reason they may have. On a different note, the guy from just before (the AfD-remover), is requesting unblock already while asking semi-protection on their usertalk and calling most of those that reverted him (except you) sockpuppets attacking the page he kept removing the template from. Not really helpful behaviour for someone who's trying to get unblocked, I'd say. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it really makes you wonder sometimes! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Carlos Beltrán

Can you enable indef. pending changes without disabling semi-protection? --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is technically possible to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure that, once the protection expires, without indef. PC, there won't be vandalism? --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Really planning ahead, huh? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Never mind. Let's wait until December to see what happens then. --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh... In that case, re-enable just in case? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of material

This page has a huge number of incoming links. Ideally, these should have been disambiguated before bringing to AFD and turning into a dab page. I see that you have disambiguated some of the incoming links because they popped up on my watchlist. Are you intending to do them all? If not, I am inclined to take this to DRV because this is quite disruptive for readers. Deletion should at least be postponed until the disambiguation work is done. SpinningSpark 13:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on doing any more with that. In terms of procedure, the Afd had been open over a week with a consensus to delete, which is why I did so. I'm not sure why you want to take this to DRV, but if you think that's the right step you're welcome to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems the all the links from articles have been cleaned up (although there is still a large number from other namespaces) so the point is now moot. My thinking was that it is better that readers land on a poor but relevant article when following a link rather than a not so helpful dab page. There were hundreds of incoming links when I first looked and I was imagining that these would remain broken and not fixed any time soon. SpinningSpark 22:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Vile Pervert: The Musical

Please see WP:BLPN.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything specific you'd like me to comment on? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Just thought you might like to see it, as this and the Paloma Blanca issue seem to have annoyed Jonathan King, who commented on his website today. No obligation to comment here, though. BTW, I can't see anything wrong with the decision to merge.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll check it out later if I have time. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Good day Mark,

My name is Maurice White and I own the trademark MOBONIX. My trademark has been specifically infringed on by Mohammed N. Kabir. As well as Mr. Kabir attempting to register my trademark with the USPTO. On January 4,2014 the trademark trial and appeals board issued a order refusing to register the mark to Mr. Kabir and granting my motion for summary judgement in its entirety. This information can be verified at under trademark opposition number 91208466.

Mr. Kabir continues to infringe on my trademark and further steal my professional identity on this site and others. And it is my belief that he is continuing to illegally mislead the public through his persistent misinformation on Wikipedia. It is also my belief that mr. Kabir has also started to anonymously vandalize the MOBONIX page from IP address as this address is located in Houston, TX and Mr. Kabir is from Houston.

The trademark office has upheld and enforced my rights and now it is wikipedia's turn.

Please revert the MOBONIX page to reflect the true owner, artist, producer and manager represented by this name and mark. And lock the page, or use whatever means are in your power to thwart Mr. kabir's campaign of misinformation and illegal use.

Thank you,

Maurice white — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markwinters1 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's standards, this is a content dispute, which on Wikipedia means that it must be resolved by consensus. I suggest you open a discussion of the matter on the article's talk page to try to reach a consensus. You could also open an WP:RFC to try to get input from other editors. Note that all information in the article must be sourced to a reliable source, see WP:RS for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

To add, Maurice does not have trademark protection for the MOBONIX name (no one does). He opposed the original trademark application and was able to stop registration based on a legal technicality without proving first use. This matter is now up for appeal with USPTO. The article was originally written by me and has been up for years with periodic disruptions from Maurice White using unverifiable comments such as "In 2001, after an accident on a movie set it was necessary for doctors to use advanced dna programming to revive him." Because of these actions, the wikipedia community locked the page to stop Maurice White from future vandalism.Illxchild (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)illxchild

Mark, I've posted to AN/I. hope you don't mind. I've seen usurpation before, but never like this. Dlohcierekim 02:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've replied there, I think Afd is best at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Samartis deletion

Dear Mark, The Nicholas Samartis page has extensive references and he is a known and notable photographer. Please reinstate the page or let us know what is needed re further notes and references. he has extensively worked for American Vogue and photographed a whole list of major celebrities.

Thank you.


Well, if you disagree with the deletion, you are free to appeal the decision at WP:DRV. But it would be best if you created a well sourced draft of the article in your userspace instead, see WP:USERSPACEDRAFT for details. Let me know what you decide to do. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

James Avery (actor)

PC isn't working any longer; people change birth info back and forth. Upgrade to semi-protection? --George Ho (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good plan. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Stalking & Harassment

Hello Mark, recently you protected the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam article for Edit warring/content dispute, the good thing is the other user has finally decided to discuss the edits after I gave him repeated warnings and an explaination. But now he has started stalking and harassing me. Much of what he discusses is not civil and is standoffish. He has already been warned and blocked for Personal attacks. This is not the first dispute we have had, but it always ends in him "hijacking" the article. I have placed a request at WP:THIRD so maybe we can end this dispute with some common sense. Furthermore now he has started to revert my recent edits [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] with little or no edit summaries. Can you stop this? Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll have time to look into this, I suggest taking it to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Protection of a page which does not need protection

I have made several edits of the coinye page which have been unmade each time. I have cited several sources again and again and it keeps beying reversed. Please correct this so the truth can be put on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niklamat (talkcontribs) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If your edits are being reversed, what you should do is post on the article's talk page and explain your reasoning there. Someone should come along and discuss it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@ The First Person To Ever Have Access To THE REAL FOURTH DIMENSION Isn't A "Constructive Contribution" to the Wikipedia Article "Four Dimensional Space"?

Yeah the Wikipedia Article Called "Four Dimensional Space" Has Paragraphs About The Development Of Who Discovered and Thought What Over The Centuries with Four Dimensional Geometry. All Of The Ones Currently On There Only Teach ABOUT the Fourth Dimension, But When A Link Appears That Includes THE Fourth Dimension, That Would Totally Revolutionize Science And Technology And History... ie on "Four Dimensional Space"

"Doesn't Appear Constructive"

And I'm supposed to waste time on you, because... What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't the faintest clue what you mean here. Perhaps if you raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics they'd be able to understand. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A look at the website linked to shows what it's all about, getting money from ignorant suckers in the name of religion by claiming to be some kind of Messiah and Knowing The Truth, etc. So it's not only "not constructive" but also promotion and just about every other sticker you want to put on it. Thomas.W talk to me 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, the fact that someone's website Has Paragraphs About The Development Of Who Discovered and Thought What Over The Centuries with Four Dimensional Geometry doesn't make it a reliable source; you're going to have to supply sourcing from peer-reviewed academic papers. Acroterion (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could get Gene Ray to confirm this discovery :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sheesh, it's just a website? I thought it was a link into the fourth dimension! Bishonen | talk 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC).
Well, there is at least one website that can take you into the fourth dimension, or something along those lines... Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You, know, it's just me but I recommend skipping the 4th dimension and moving straight to the 5th dimension. Let the sunshine in, man. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That's nothing. The sixth dimension was already mined independently (that is, without a record label). Mindy Dirt (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll have to check that one out... Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
As long as your research is based on the significant coverage that reliable, independent sources give to exploration of the Seventh Dimension, you will remain grounded in reality, and all will be well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


Can you change OperationsEMWM's block to indefinite for being a username policy violation? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that would make sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Dang you!

Well, Mark Arsten (talk), you are driving me crazy tonight by repeatedly beating me to the punch at reverting vandalism. You are one of my favorite contributors - always fair, always analytical, and always on the ball. Keep up the good work! —Josh3580talk/hist 01:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, and sorry for any frustration :) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It continues

Hi Mark, Further to this, meat puppets also include,,and User:Throwdini . Flat Out let's discuss it 09:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, does look like meatpuppets of some kind. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, this file was previously tagged as fair use for the article "WKRC-TV", but Werieth removed it from that article back in October. I believe that, rather than being fair use, it is actually in the public domain as a plain text logo. Would you mind undeleting this file, or possibly reuploading it to Commons, so I can add it back to the article? Thank you! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 11:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistake, I've undeleted the image. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Converting Types of Motorcycles to List?

I see you have contributed, or sought to contribute, to the page on types of motorcycles (actually in your case, it was page protection). We are currently considering reducing that page to a list. The list would link to separate pages exploring each type in depth. An example of how it would look is in my sandbox. See the talk page for Types of Motorcycles for further discussion. Do you have an opinion, pro or con?ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 13:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look if I have time later. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Disruptive, WP:Vandalizing IP who hates the word teenager

Is back up to disruption. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, enough silliness, I've blocked him. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Mark, I am patrolling recent changes by newbies and User:AKS.9955 is coming up for making frequent reverts. The reverts are legit but they are coming up because they are not yet autoconfirmed, but should be. Would you mind having a look when you get time. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Flat Out, thanks for keeping an eye. Every now and then, even I have to authenticate by typing the letters; is there something wrong I am doing? Please let me know if I am not supposed to be reverting the changes. Sorry if I caused any confusions / trouble - it was not intended. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Arun Kumar SINGH , you aren't doing anything wrong I just can't see why your account isn't autoconfirmed. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Flat Out, it is not autoconfirmed as you earlier rightly pointed out - I am a newbie (literally). Yet to cross the 4 day mark :-). In any case, can you please keep an eye on me for 1-2 days to make sure if I am not screwing up (don't mind). I am already taking help from 3 different experienced users and they have been very kind and helpful to me. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It is unusual for someone non-autoconfirmed to make frequent reverts, but there could be a good explanation. I guess we should just assume good faith and watch to make sure there are no issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mark Arsten, sorry I wasnt clear. The edits are all good I'm just surprised the account isn't autoconfirmed yet.Flat Out let's discuss it 09:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking into it some more, what may have happened is that he had a established account for a while and wanted a name change and created a new account instead of getting his old one changed. It takes four full days to get autoconfirmed, no matter how many edits you make. He's crossed that line now though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


Hey Mark! I joined wikipedia in 2011 but became active user (start editing daily) at the end of 2013, because of my unexperienced work I was once blocked due to disruptive editing. I want to ask that is there a way to clear my deletion log somehow because its really making a bad impression whenever I try to request for wikipedia rights. Can you help me in this regard? UBStalk 08:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, once you've been blocked it stays on your record. I wouldn't worry about it though, many of our best contributors have been blocked in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

About you closing afd's early per WP:SNOW

I would like to know if you have actually analysed these articles (with particular Rural Bank of Marayo and The Real Bank) prior to closing. Thanks. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so what do you think? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there was a consensus that they can be improved and that deletion isn't needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

IP editor not listening

I've been dealing with an IP editor (unrelated to all of the bullshit previously) who constantly posts URLs in edit summaries and they're all to illegal ile uploads or places that we wouldn't use a sources. Do you think you could suppress some of his edit summaries?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if you give me a list of problematic edit summaries I'll go through and revdelete them. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think any with a URL in them in there is bad so
I think that covers them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, are you sure these need to be revision deleted? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Page protects and such

Hey Mark, thanks for helping out with all of my page protect requests and sockpuppetry investigations. Every time I see your name behind one of them, I think "Aw man, I'm just giving the guy extra work. :) Anyhow, I appreciate the efforts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome, thanks for what you're doing as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page "D. James Goodwin"

Hello. I have logged in after a long absence to see an article that I created ( was deleted. Because of my absence I did not see the PROD. I see the concern was lack of information substantiating why the subject is notable. I would argue that this subject was proven as notable in the article via a substantial and credibly proven Discography, as well as being a published writer for technical journals in his profession. Finally, the subject was indeed listed in Wiki's own American Recording Engineers article since approximately 2007/2008. The subject is also listed and linked in dozens of Wiki articles based on subjects he has worked with or on. I would argue heartily that in the music recording industry, the subject is entirely notable, and with a verifiable CV to boot. Please consider reinstating the article, and if I need to provide more credible sources, please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modklein (talkcontribs) 20:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've undeleted it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

IP vandal making a request at Talk:Glee (season 5)

Mark, I decided to address the vandal, now at IP, directly, basically to say that the request is never going to happen. So far, the only edits were to that talk; still, you might want to block to prevent further edits that might actually do damage. I'll leave it up to you, since you know policy far better than I do, but I think it might be worth it to have one request up just to show what this guy's after, and that it should be refused. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think WP:RBI is the best strategy here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be sure not to engage again; just revert and let you know about the return. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

John Youboty

Is it possible for this deleted article could go to the Article Incubator? (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Usually we don't do that. Is there a reason to think he'll be notable soon? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I just think it should be necessary to put this article in the Article Incubator. (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What makes you say that? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe by putting this article to the Article Incubator because I don't why it was deleted so soon but I think over time it will eventually be worth it. (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved it to Draft:John Youboty so you can work on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my thoughts. Thanks. (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I added some info to the article I hope it makes it better. (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mark Arsten. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OneMadScientist‎‎.
Message added 02:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Big Hairy Monster is a sock. Technical 13 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense looking at it now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You still around?

I was thinking of your post to Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, but I haven't been following the discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Could you restore semi-protection on this? The same IP edits have started up again. HGilbert (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I only see two reverts so far, let me know if more come in. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

As not all removed reports were actually declined, the edit summary of this edit is misleading: [10] Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't look like either of them were blocked to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, "declined" and "ignored" are not the same thing. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the issue here. If you ask someone to do something and they opt not to do so, they're essentially declining your request. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ask anyone in particular to do anything, and nobody explicitly opted not to do so either. My main point here is that I would expect an actual decline message - with valid reasoning! - and for it to stick around for a bit before being removed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the board is to request blocks, there's no other reason to be listing an account there. After reviewing the situation, John made the call not to block. To me, that qualifies as you making a request and him declining it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
How do you claim to know that the administrator in question "made the call not to block"? That's the gist of the matter. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you planning to continue this discussion? If not, please let me know instead of simply not responding (after all, how am I supposed to know that you didn't simply forget about it otherwise?). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to explain everything as best I can, I'm not sure what else you would like to know here. You requested a block, the reviewing admin declined your request, and then it was removed from the board a few hours later. It was a pretty routine situation, not sure why you're so concerned about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You didn't fully address what I wrote in this section, but I suppose this is all sort of moot now. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Jasmine Waltz redux

Hi. I was taken aback to see that Launchballer thought it was up to him to override the consensus call of the uninvolved admin closer (=you) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Waltz. I've re-deleted it. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC).

That message is slightly misleading - I recreated it as a redirect, I've seen a good couple of AfDs closed as redirect despite there being more votes for delete then redirect, and I assumed this one would be the same, therefore I didn't think to open myself up to redirection. My apologies.
A perfectly valid redirect target would be Celebrity Big Brother 13#Jasmine Waltz. This was stated at the AfD. Bishonen does not mind it being recreated as a redirect, but has asked me for your permission - could you restore the redirect?--Launchballer 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I'm fine with redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Saumya Daan

Hello, I have just found out that a detailed article on this site provided for Indian voice artist Saumya Daan has been deleted. Now, I'm not sure if this was necessary as I provided some sources towards this actor, but I would like the page to be restored back, if necessary. I provided all the information, and I know this may seem biased, but I've worked real hard to find all the roles that he's done. Do you think you can restore it back please? BlueMario1016 | talk 11:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC).

I've restored it since it was deleted via WP:PROD. You need to add sources though or it will be deleted again most likely. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Mark, Re the deletion of the page for Back2Basics the radio show and possible reinstatement: as discussed here is the confirmation from RTE that they're taking the show, which starts this Wednesday. Here's another article Regards, Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjohnpalmer (talkcontribs) 19:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored it since no one really showed up to the Afd. It could still be nominated for deletion in the future though. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page "Michelle Schmitt"

Hi Mark, I saw that you deleted the page "Michelle Schmitt" on January 12th. Wanted to know what needs to be added or changed on the article to make it more notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We'd have to see evidence that she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable source to have it restored. See WP:GNG for the guideline. This generally means coverage in books, magazines or newspapers. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here are articles that she has been featured in over the years:

7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the thing to do now then is to create a draft version of the article. You can create it in the draft namespace or as a userspace draft. Make sure that it is non-promotional and it contains cited references to the reliable sources that you've found. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Those articles were on the original page. Is there any way to revert the deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that only two of the sources were cited to support content in the article. It's not enough to list references, you have to cite them to support the facts in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new article with cited references. Do I submit or can you review to reverse the deletion. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcunningham808 (talkcontribs) 20:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's an improvement, but it could still be improved by adding more sources, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution Network, Australia

This deleted page is worth considering for reinstatement. The CRN was responsible for the introduction of conflict resolution techniques in Australia, including university courses (eg, Macquarie University) and a textbook by Gregory Tillett ("Resolving Conflict", now in its 4th edition, 2010). Not sure if CRN is still active, but will check. Critical reviews should be available. User talk: kookaburra17 —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide references to these reviews it may be possible to have the page undeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page "H._V._Kumar"

Hi Mark This is a request for undeletion of this page. Contrary to the perception around of H V Kumar not being a big celebrity, he has a significant fan following and acceptance among the users of Indian highways. A simple Google search will return a lot of articles and mentions about him and his immense knowledge around Indian highways Given the complexity of the highways and roads in India and with so little information publicly available online, he performs a great service to his followers who reach out to him for help with directions and guidance while traveling. His achievements have been covered extensively by the local media both online, print and audio. This page by listing his achievements but also his contacts allows a lot more highway users to start following him and be part of his group. Hence it is requested that this page be restored to its original form and whatever else is needed to maintain this page will be done by the group members. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of media coverage of him? It may be possible to have the page restored if we can find significant coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark In addition to the existing ones, here're some more new coverage about him & there're few more upcoming in the next couple of months. All the below are highly reputed, well credited news daily in India.

and one more - Kindly restore the article. Thank you Aarganesh (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the thing to do now then is to create a draft version of the article. You can create it in the draft namespace or as a userspace draft. Make sure that it is non-promotional and it contains cited references to the reliable sources that you've found. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh!! So the original article can't be retrieved then? Quite sadAarganesh (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically it could, but since there was concern that it was too promotional I'm hesitant to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I request, please restore the article & I assure you 100% it's certainly not a self promotional. I WILL certainly provide concrete evidence that Mr H.V.Kumar is certainly a person who is more than worth mentioning for his super ability on photogenic memory to recall the places over a large nation like India & provide instant route assistance to be called as a Living GPS. If you would accept voice clippings from radio as proof, I can upload his recent interview with Radio City. Kindly restore the article. Thanks. Aarganesh (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Hi Mark, please consider this request of mine to restore the original article & I will prove it's not self promotion with necessary & acceptable standards of Wikipedia. Thanks Aarganesh (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved it to User:Aarganesh/H. V. Kumar so you can clean it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That wonderful IP

Thanks for the protection, as you placed it right before I requested it. Would you also be able to block it as well, as it seems to be up to no good. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I left a final warning on the IP's talk page, we'll see how he responds... Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Per that response on their user page, I'll support you if you decide to protect that page as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he has an account and is editing while logged out, but his most recent edits look Ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that appears to have been a fluke, as they're now removing legitimate links under the rationale of "fake url." Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:User rights

Can you move-protect it? --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I guess so. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Block this vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user is a long term vandal and abuser of this site. A good indef. block is recommended as this vandal has just received many blocks and won't stop. ///EuroCarGT 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) An indef for an IP? Wouldn't a year (or two or three) suffice? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
6 months is good, just though that from my head. ///EuroCarGT 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to Undelete Multiple Women's Soccer Players

I was wondering if the players mentioned here, whose pages are still deleted, could be undeleted now that they have been drafted by NWSL teams (they were all first round picks). The NWSL is the top league in the USA and fully professional. I-miss-carm (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, I'm not sure if we're supposed to wait until they actually play in a game or if just being drafted is enough. Do you know if the guideline says it anywhere? We could ask at the WikiProject I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find any guidelines specifically about soccer drafts (probably because it's only the MLS and NWSL that have them). But I did see that for NHOCKEY, first round picks are considered notable. For the NWSL, first round picks get a lot of news (relatively speaking). Just run a google search for "Kealia Ohai Houston Dash" and you'll see all the results. There have been articles about her from The Houston Chronicle, KHOU, CSN Houston, and CBS Houston just to name a few. But if you think it should wait until they've played a game that's fine. I just didn't want to see someone creating a new page from scratch for these players when one had already existed because barring career ending injury, they will all be playing professionally come April 12th. Alternatively, would there be a way that you could copy the contents of those pages into my sandbox so they could be updated and expanded upon to be ready for their first game? I-miss-carm (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the late response. I think the best thing to do is ask the Football project how they prefer to handle this. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mark, Can you userfy these articles to my namespace so we can take a look at the content? I see you're listed as an admin that can assist with this. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Reguest to undelete Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry

First, because I am a new wikipedian please forgive if you are not the one I should ask for it. In my opinion the article Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry has been improved significantly comparing with the version that was marked to deletion. The article should not be much bigger as even more established journals have similar or even smaller entries. The biggest shortcoming (lack of external sources) has been fixed. My and other user's edits indicate that the journal is well recognized and Wikipedia should have an entry about it.Crookedriver (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I think the best thing to do at this point is to ask for deletion to be overturned at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


After his comment about me at Talk:Burrows Cave I decided it was time to raise his behavior at your AN post. Enough is enough, he's been getting away with this sort of thing for years. It creates what I think we call a 'chilling effect'. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good call. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow-Up on Deletion Review Decision: Peter Pakeman

Hello Mark, I'm pleased to inform you that the Canadian Soccer Association has confirmed it has game sheets proving that I played 3 games with the North York Rockets in 1987. A copy of these docments will be mailed to me. The question I have for you is what next? Do I have to publish the game sheets, which will likely contain names of other individuals, or do you want me to send you a pdf copy via email? Please advise.InPerpetuity (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess you should try to get a draft accepted at WP:AFC now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thx!InPerpetuity (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Me again. You've re-directed me to the creation of articles. I was hoping that Wiki would simply reproduce the last version of the article prior to its deletion. Is this possible?InPerpetuity (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it's probably just best to start from scratch here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll have to contact Xave2000 to see if she kept a copy of the article, otherwise it's a full rewrite. Back to an earlier question, do I have to publish the game sheets or should I submit them to you or someone else? Please advise.InPerpetuity (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's best to start from scratch since concerns were raised about the tone of the old article. Make sure that all the information is neutral and cited to a reliable source. If you're citing offline sources you don't need to link to them, no. You could ask on WP:WikiProject Football about how they usually handle that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Great! Thx so much.InPerpetuity (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Making 3 appearances in the Canadian Soccer League might mean you technically pass WP:NFOOTBALL - I have my doubts about this source being used to verify the claim that the league was "fully-professional", further comments at WT:FPL - but there is still the more pressing concern of a) the article failing WP:GNG and b) the article being used as a promotional tool. GiantSnowman 18:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point, and definitely something to keep in mind when rewriting the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a few comments. Firstly, the reference cited re: CSL was not used in the deleted article. Secondly, Wiki contains a few articles where the CSL is named and referenced (e.g., Canadian soccer league system, Soccer in Canada, and Canadian Soccer League (1987–92) where the CSL is named as a Division 1 league. Other supporting sources could include [11]) and [12]). Other Wiki concerns about finding reliable sources that provide significant coverage will remain an issue for past Canadian leagues and players, as supported by Colin Jose (soccer historian) who states ...very few records were ever kept of soccer in North America, and hardly any books were ever published [13]. Lastly, I'm not sure what is meant by the article being a "promotional tool" Further explanation would be helpful, and any assistance with editing to remove this perception would be welcomed. Should I start by recreating a draft of the article for your review and comments?InPerpetuity (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any references from reliable sources that the CSL was a fully-professional league. Given the financial losses mentioned by RSSSF I doubt it was. GiantSnowman 18:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
How is fully-professional defined or what criteria is being used? Also, what body or group e.g., Soccer Canada (Canadian Soccer Association) is best positioned to make this determination?InPerpetuity (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I found this link,, and am crrently making inqures at the CSA and the historian.InPerpetuity (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer

Hello. I am still rather new to the WIkipedia community and I respect that pages must warrant being protected. I am hoping you can help me understand why Zodiac Killer does not qualify for protection. In the last week alone there have been 5 vandalism edits. In fact of the last months worth of edits, I see only one that wasn't reverted (excluding the revisions of course). Any help you can give me in understanding would be very much appreciated. :-) Thanks! --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

At the time I declined the protection, there were only three reverts in the past week, which is a little less than I look for when protecting. It seems like the vandalism is continuing now though, so I'll protect it. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! To be clear, wasn't challenging your judgement, just wanted to try to understand the process better. :-) Thanks for your help. --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Dzyublo

Hey so...nobody has posted anything since I've posted this nearly 2 weeks ago. What should I do? LADY LOTUSTALK 20:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Sometimes there's quite a backlog at Afd, lack of participation and all. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guy! You're speedy and awesome as always! LADY LOTUSTALK 22:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Iran national football team

Being that we can't modify that page for being protected and all, could you please change Javad Nekounam's team to Al-Kuwait? Thanks in advance. (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'll unprotect it for you. It's not good to leave it protected indefinitely anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring, still

Hello. I'd like to bring up this issue again. No, there isn't a third IP that's showed up, but what's happening at Cluj-Napoca does seem to require some sort of firm administrative intervention. Any help would be appreciated. - Biruitorul Talk 23:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Re-protect Iran national football team

Iranianson is already edit warring with RidiQLus again on Iran national football team over the exact same thing that you had to protect it the first 2 times over. Can you re-protect it and/or block them? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I left a comment there. I'll check on it again later. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A lack of consistency

I see recently, you blocked user for two weeks for "personal attacks".[14] Why was this John from Idegon not blocked for the same?[15] Shouldn't the actions of an editor with Reviewing and Rollback rights be expected to meet a higher standard? You punished the person for whom this John set such a poor example. (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing that comment of John's before, to be honest. I agree that it was inappropriate, but as it took place almost a month ago there's not much I can do about it now. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, Mark, but that was in no way a personal attack. Quite uncivil of me I agree, but in no way a personal attack. It was an in-kind response to a comment he had made on my talk page. The language was too strong I agree, but not entirely inappropriate for the remark it was in response to.
However, a floating IP is posting virtually the same message as you got just above here on other user talk pages See here. Perhaps this may have some bearing on the above mentioned sockpuppet investigation. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, what's done is done, but I would suggest avoiding that kind of language in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It was pretty uncharacteristic of me, but everyone has bad days occasionally. One of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is the new editor that shows up and expects us to shape the policies to suit them. Because of the "freedom" of the 'net, that happens frequently. Pretty sure this all goes right back to Wicks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Understandable, we all lose our tempers sometimes. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Lindhout

Hi, I noticed you said "persistent vandalism" when you made an edit to the Amanda Lindhout page. I presume that was directed at me? I was wondering if perhaps you took the time to look at the Talk page, and at the discussion I had with Jeremy112233 on his own talk page here:

He keeps insistent my well-researched contributions are "slanted" and "breach BLP". But the really very crucial information I have added, was sourced from Nigel Brennan's own book on his and Amanda's abduction and captivity, and a respected journalist from the New York Post who wrote a lengthy article on the affair.

Jeremy112233 has been unable to provide a single, specific reason as to why or how my edits are "slanted" or against Wikipedia's rules. They contradict BLP in no sense at all, they are verifiable, neutral (which was the whole purpose of adding them in the first place) and come from secondary sources. In fact, one of the problems with the version of the article I found before I edited it, is that most of it came from Lindhout's own self-published website and her own words from interviews.

I was merely trying to insert some objectivity into the article - and yet it seems I'm being attacked and threatened by all and sundry.

Best regards,

InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your edits were vandalism, no. But it's important to note that tabloid sources are inappropriate for use in biographies of living people. See WP:BLPSOURCES for the policy. As to the content of the page, I suggest you discuss the matter on the article's talk page or raise the issue at WP:BLPN. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I've found numerous alternative sources to the "tabloid" which state the exact same thing. I've also taken it to WP:BLPN as you mentioned. I've been discussing content at length on the talk page. Unfortunately, the other editors haven't. And the accusations continue. Personally, I'm bowing out. But I thought you'd like to know that this whole "ganging up on the new kid" with fancy Wikipedia terminology, endless reverts, and repeated snide remarks that attack me personally but make to attempt to address the issues is, like, totally not cool man. :-) InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, if they are attacking you personally, please point it out to me and I will speak to them about that. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

sockpuppet admits being a sockpuppet!

Please can you look at this:

Several sockpuppets have been blocked just this week, new editor admits to being the same sockpuppet and now other editors are saying he shouldnt be banned! Im currently being looked into as a sockpuppet, im not (i know, we all say that) so its not really fair that a new editor that admits to being SEVEN BLOCKED PUPPETS already is allowed to edit? Any help appreciated.Honest-john (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you provide some context here? Who are the seven puppets? Who was the sockmaster? Why were they blocked? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Mark, if you go to that link the post re the recent blocks is just above with all details of the puppets and the blocks?Honest-john (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Following a CheckUser (see this), the following SPAs that have edited this article have been blocked for being socks of the same sock master:

LudoVicar Progrockerfan Pedohater Aliceinsprings Monica Santa Cliffwise Couple of features to note: Some of these have edited this article over many years albeit sporadically; some have appeared to have the opposite of their true POV, or otherwise tried to disguise their true POV by making derogatory remarks about the subject of this article. This isn't the first SPI of this sort on this article and I suggest it won't be the last. DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And it is a pity because anyone, including the article subject, is allowed to correct unambiguous errors of fact. Ideally, this should be done on the article talk page, rather than by editing the article itself. What is not allowed is surreptitious editing or the use of multiple accounts. This has long been suspected as a problem area for this particular article, and hopefully the chances of being caught and blocked for doing it will sink in.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC) I agree. For a variety of reasons (including press distortions) it's often difficult to get to accurate facts on King. If someone with direct knowledge openly posted corrections on the talk page I think this would greatly help in improving this article. DeCausa (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Btw, for the long term nature of these problems see this 2009 SPI thread and Talk page thread. DeCausa (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Honest-john (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think you should re-open his page at WP:SPI then. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

LL Cool J socks

Just as the sockpuppet case was closed for Robert Lee III and I reverted the most recent sock, User: EdBanks is created and adds the content back in their first edit. Obviously another sock. If you could also protect LL Cool J, I would appreciate it. STATic message me! 19:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Recreation of Quark Cryptocurrency article after afd close


I recently noticed that Quark (Cryptocurrency) was created substantially duplicating the content (and issues) that lead to the (afd of Quark Coin) on 26 December 2013. As you were the admin who closed the afd as delete, and the new article appears to have the same problems as the old, I thought I would let you know. Dialectric (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I've redirected the article for now and pointed the creator at WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mark,

I have just added Quark (Cryptocurrency) and in between editting. It is not a good courtesy to delete an entry giving a logic- not noticeable by Dialectric. Please explain how Dogecoin becomes so noticeable. There is intentional attack on QuarkCoin in some forums. Please come and argue for deletion ( It is 9th largest Crytpto-currency and have hundreds of articles published in renown media.


I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but we've already had a discussion about the notability of this topic here and here and it was agreed that it was not notable. If you think there is evidence that it is notable, you have to go to WP:DRV to make your case and get permission to recreate the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mark,

I have added an entry to (afd of Quark Coin). Please consider the situation. Quark (Cryptocurrency) is just created and Quarkcoin is not the actual name of the currency, it is Quark. It is just an article that needs good number of editions, not immediate deletion. There are hundreds of investors and followers of Quark ( and making projects everyday [16]. Dogecoin is just another meme coin with viral marketing, no basic innovation and has some media coverage. Quark has lots of media coverages, but one has to be unbiased to see the truth. --There hundreds of Quark dis-likers due to their own intention (eg. Reddit article to attack Quark I will look into notability rules and have more discussion. Maqayum (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this Afd is now closed and shouldn't be edited. Where you want to post is here. If you start a new discussion there you might be able to get the article undeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mark,

I am not sure who is the responsible administrator on deletion. (, So, I copied the same arguments to both of you

CC: JohnCD

I would like to request un-delete Quark (Cryptocurrency) ( and give an opportunity to Quark community ( rewrite the article in diligent way. I am here because WP:DRV suggests "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." Reason for requesting un-deletion is the premise "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" Cryptocurrency is a fast moving technology, so things have been changed a lot after the deletion of the article Quarkcoin on 10 December 2013. Quark has one of the most vibrant communities in Cryptocurrency domain with tens of thousands of investors, followers and volunteers ( There are more than 50,000 wallet addresses that contain more than 0.1 Quarks ( It was once 4th largest Cryptocoin, now 9th largest ( this reference is used by main stream media like Forbes to Wired), which says about its popularity and adoption. There is a new Quark related project in every few days. That being said, there are also plenty of new mainstream media articles and articles from other reliable sources that talk about Quark: More articles can be found if time is provided to do the research. What all these articles have in common is that when they refer to a list of notable cryptocurrencies, Quark is always mentioned in such lists! So, people may want to know more about Quark. Wikipedia being a top source for community based knowledge, will serve the purpose in best possible way. I believe that I have tried made the case on be half of the Quark community that that in all fairness Quark has long earned its position among the notable cryptocurrencies to be an objective Wikipedia article on Cryptocurrency. (talk) 12:05 AM, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the references, but I'm not sure they're enough to justify a page that this point. I think filing at DRV now is your best bet. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I will file WP:DRV, thanks for guiding me. (talk) 1:25 AM, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You're too efficient at what you do!

Are you able to unarchive this SPI? I was changing it to inprogress as I found a bunch of socks related to the newest account. Alternatively I can start a new section listing the new accounts. Which is easier as far as clerking goes?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I've unarchived it for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries, it's up-to-date now. Stern review rarely creates just one account so I like to check each time a new sock is found. It helps limit the potential damage as they are quite prolific with dubious article creation.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, makes sense to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This is good to know as I can ping you when the case comes up. I dealt with it quickly so that it didn't add to a CU backlog. I see Mark already nuked the contribs. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
No need to ping, it's on my watchlist. I'll try to work through some of the open CU requests this afternoon.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

An Apology

Lately, I have been doing stupid things. I vandalised the pages on Phillip Pullman and Ingrid Newkirk, then I got the last warning. I came here to apologize not only to the mod I disrespected, but all of Wikipedia. I hated phillip and Ingrid, for the things they have done. I should have put my anger elsewhere instead of vandalizing a piece of knowledge. I will not grief or vandalise pages anymore. I am extremely sorry for my immaturity — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, we all do things we regret sometimes :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles Manson

It was previously semi-protected indefinitely for four years. I was probably new to PC and was hoping that PC is the good alternative. I realize that PC and semi are two different animals. Can you re-enable the PC without disabling semi, just in case? --George Ho (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I follow you here. Why should we do both at this point? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
When the semi-protection ends, the PC would come back to shield IP/newbie edits from offline readers. Without PC, vandals may come back since I was bad at predicting the outcome before PC, and I believe some vandalism may be overlooked without PC. Any more reason must I give? --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Back again

There was briefly a new request from the same old Care Bears vandal, now IP ‎, at Talk:A Katy or a Gaga (seen here), possibly removed because he addressed me directly. Given RBI, I'll leave it to you to block; I also suggest continuing the block on the article. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd, I wonder why he posted it and then reverted himself? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Two possibilities: he either realized that the new IP shouldn't know about me or the other IPs since there was nothing there on the talk page about it, or that the article wasn't protected any longer and that he had no reason to post a request in the first place. (That's why I'm suggesting reprotecting the article.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


Dear Mark,

Hello ! Thank you for your message about my last edit. I indeed wanted to change what some users may have "revealed" as unnecessary private details, possibly harmful for GACKT. The truth is, I am a huge fan of him, and as he is starting an international career, I thought various rumors and fantasies about him should not have been displayed on Wikipedia... I wanted to enlighten his talent instead. I am sorry, I realised I forgot to precise the reason for my edit once I had it sent !

Thank you for having taken time to read my edit and told me your view.

Kind Regards,

Noctalys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noctalys (talkcontribs) 03:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Ok, feel free to re-remove it if you want, just make sure you explain why you're doing so in an edit summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


There been a lot of disruptive editing by IP users on this file's summary & license File:Facebook (login, signup page).jpg Is there a way to protect a file so that autoconfirmed users may make changes in file. UBStalk 03:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is--I've just done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thank you for your timeUBStalk 11:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


This IP,,[17] has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is strange, you might want to report him to WP:AIV if he continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD/Generalized Epidemic Mean-Field Model

I was editing Compartmental models in epidemiology and learned about this AfD which you closed as WP:merge. Apparently, either the content from GEMFM was already in Compartmental models, or perhaps someone later copied and pasted it without merging. In any event, I just rewrote the GEMF section in Compartmental models to clarify it. It doesn't appear to me that a merger is necessary at this point. Perhaps a speedy delete then for Generalized Epidemic Mean-Field Model? Malke 2010 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. In this case we can just redirect it instead of merging the exact content over. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Mark. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Genre warrior Dan56

I was wondering if you might be able to lend some advice regarding two disputes with User:Dan56. He is genre and content warring at Are You Experienced and ...And Justice for All (album). I've asked him to stop several times, but I think he might need a warning from someone he respects. His FAs are littered with plagarisms that he refuses to correct, all the while spending day after day on genre disputes at articles he does not even edit. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not genre warring. I contributed significantly to both articles. It's not my fault if they get picked apart and removed at both articles because they did not mesh with certain editors at those articles. Dan56 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Dan, you have some serious sourcing issues and you are a pathological plagiarist. Stop wasting people's time trying to dominate genres while your articles are littered with problems that you should be fixing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"Genre warrior", "pathological plagiarist", anything else kind sir? Dan56 (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
BTW, sorry Mark . Dan56 (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You have contributed nothing to ...And Justice for All (album) except for including fake sources that support your personal belief. Instead of building consensus, you are aggressively reverting my edits.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
That's big fat lie. Check the article's history going back to May of last year, and you'll see I was expanding the article, even later with Вик Ретлхед, who actually asked for help while collaborating, but I guess ppl get touchy and things change when genres get brought up, right? Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Dan is in desperate need of an intervention. He is a time-waster and he pedanticly reverts any changes to genres that he does not agree with. I see a trip to AN/I in his near future. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Dude! You tried some overarching plan to get "acid rock" out of every infobox on Wikipedia. You used "not a musicologist" argument to remove "acid rock" again, yet this edit by me following the same argument was wrong? Dan56 (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My time and attention are somewhat limited this afternoon, so ANI might be a better venue if you need a speedy response here. I can try to look into this later though. Or maybe WP:AN3 since there's a bit of edit warring going on. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Mark, I'm not a big fan for 3RR reports, because invariably the clerk says that everyone was edit warring. MY issue with Dan is a bigger one; he seems to have a group of articles that he is not particularly interested in except that he dominates the genre listings. Look art his contribs, and you'll see that he starts each day by patrolling the articles on his watchlist for genre changes, which he then reverts as if all addition are contentious. He even places templates on editor's talk pages warning them that we never make genre changes without proper sourcing, which I have never heard before. I think an intervention is in order, but I'm not the right person to take him to ANI, as all my detractors will pounce and attempt a boomerang. The odd part is, although Dan has 50+ GAs and 6 FAs, none of them are classic rock or metal articles, so his interest in the topic ends at his control of the genres listed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"A big fat lie"?? Your contributions were securing that "progressive metal" was mentioned zillion times in the music section and re-wording my every attempt to write something in that field. Those were your BIG contributions to the article and nothing more.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, you cited a Billboard chart title ("Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums") as verification of "R&B" and "Hip hop" in the infobox, when there is already sufficient prose (Unapologetic#Music and lyrics, most of which I wrote). And for someone who removed The Miami herald because it wasn't a "musicologist" source, your motives seem suspect here. It's OK, I get it, you don't like me. It's fine, I can live with that LOL. Dan56 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Dan56, are you saying that the fact that the album charted on Billboard's R&B/Hip-hop chart is not sufficient sourcing to add R&B and Hip-hop to the infobox? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with Dan56 here. That source is not reliable to put that additional genres in the Unapologetic infobox. And as far I know him (he helped me a lot with some articles!), he always thoroughly reviews the genres of albums and the Critical reception quotes. And no, it's not enough for the genre to be placed in the infobox and the article. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Am I in an episode of The Twilight Zone"? Are you really saying that this isn't a good enough source to add R&B to an infobox? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know in which episode of what you are, but no, that is not enough for the genre to be in the infobox. And yeah, please read WP:RELIABLESOURCES. — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Tomica, you are missing the point here. Dan reverted me today to include this excerpt from The Miami Herald as reliable sourcing that an album was acid rock, which he added to the infobox in the edit. Look at the diffs before you jump to defend him, and please don't cite wp:rs to me. My sourcing is impeccable. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
So? What's the problem with adding a well sourced genre? The source is reliable too. And it doesn't seem your sourcing is impeccable on Unapologetic to be honest. — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you really saying that the fact that the album won three Grammys in R&B categories, including Top R&B Artist, Top R&B Album, and Top R&B Song is not good enough sourcing to add R&B as a genre in the infobox of a class-B article? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The album didn't even won a Grammy yet! It is currently nominated for Best Urban Contemporary Album. What does that have with adding R&B and Dance as genres in the infobox. Please find a third party reliable source saying "Unapologetic is an R&B/dance album", then you can add that information. Thanks! — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Please read: Rihanna Sweeps R&B Categories At Billboard Music Awards: The singer wins three R&B awards and Top Radio Songs Artist. May 19 2013. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── First of all a Billboard Music Award =/= a Grammy Award. Please get the award knowledge together. And yeah still, that's not enough for having the genre in the infobox! — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you still haven't gotten consensus for that removal (I had added that months ago). I reverted your removal, which you said was based on the fact that The Miami Herald aren't musicologists, yet you did not do the same for The Guardian in that article, so... double standard? POV? Dan56 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Mark, although he said he'd refrain from being rude ([18]), GabeMc has since made throughout our interactions dismissive and disparaging remarks ([19], [20], ignored my attempt at a civil discussion regarding article content ([21], [22], [23]), trolled the articles I edit to revert me to make a point ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], (here he used a mirror of a past Wikipedia revision to restore an IP's unsourced genre change, which I had reverted), and gathering detractors to conspire and make wild accusations with ([29]). I suppose it's a free country and if he finds something by way of trolling those articles, he's welcome to improve or contribute to them, but I've gotten no where with him by trying to be civil and I don't see an end to this kind of smug attitude. Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It should go without saying though that diagnosing other contributors with mental illnesses is totally inappropriate. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
This looks like a hot mess already but I don't mind saying that I haven't appreciated Dan56's confrontational editing style. This editor and Tomica have been notably quick to blame others of canvassing when they only seem to be working in concert on this due to direct and specific appeals for supportive editing. As someone who wandered into this without any previous interactions with these editors, I don't see this bickering as constructive and I find it surprising from someone only one month off of a block for similar behavior. I don't feel like attempting any improvement to the articles in this atmosphere but I don't know what will stop the battle-grounding over trivia as it only seems more entrenched (and over more pages than I originally thought). I wouldn't have said anything if appeals for consensus had met with better results. Do you have any advice? __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre gibberish edits

Hi Mark, sorry to bug you but I was wondering if you could take a look at the edits done by Seems to me that the user is either 5 years old, or a vandal. (Or both?) The user caught my attention by adding unsourced future events at List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes here:[30][31][32], then writing a gibberish post on the article's talk page. This piqued my curiosity, so then I found this bizarre, misplaced comment, and then this one. That took me to the user's first edit at Talk:Olive Hill, Kentucky where I noticed another bizarre Kentucky IP user (probably the same dude) doing the same thing. [33] I warned a few minutes ago, so it is premature to ask for any action, but I wanted to bring them to your attention in case you thought it warranted more scrutiny. I also noticed that you warned for their bizarre post here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I think this is the guy. See angry comments from site owner. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: found this Checkuser record. I'll look into whether or not an SPI is warranted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Huh, this is very odd. Probably is just a kid, but I'll keep my eye on him in case he keeps causing problems. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Khalil (singer)

IP addresses are giving this BLP of a singer associated Justin Bieber a lot of frequently unhelpful attention today. You can make a judgement call as to whether a temporary block of IPs is appropriate.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny about that, I checked to see if protection made sense earlier today but there wasn't as much going on then. Thanks for bringing my attention back to this. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
thank you for helping me sought out inexperienced issues. UBStalk 22:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Cordle Undelete

Hello Mark, I have new updates for the Andrew Cordle Page that was deleted yesterday. I was able to cite references and included links. I would like the chance to update it and request for undeletion. Thank you Iamrubio (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I can delete it, but only if you plan to add sources. Do you have reliable sources that you'd like to add to it? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a company website and A web news article. Iamrubio (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've undeleted it for now, but I'll delete it again unless sources are added. A news article would be a good source, but a company website wouldn't be considered a reliable source per our definition, see WP:RS for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD Close

Hi mark, I have withdrawn my nomination here if you would like to close. Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 00:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since someone else has voted delete it's not eligible for a speedy keep at this point, unless User:Davey2010 changes his mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Just changed - Cheers for the heads up! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, that's all we needed--closed now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment request

Hi. Ask you may have seen from the above post, I'm trying to avoid another edit war with a certain editor and would like to properly get content restored to an article. Could you comment on whether it'd be appropriate to do so at this discussion? I'd like to also apologize for making a mess of your talk page above. I'd hate it if the same happened to mine. Dan56 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That discussion does seem appropriate, yes. Apologies for not following this too closely, I'll try to read up on it later. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for blocking for constant vandalism of Rafik Djebbour IW4U (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure, let me know if he comes back. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


I notice you locked Wolf of Wall Street. Please consider instead setting it to require revisions to be reviewed before they are allowed. I understand the policies and I understand I could get an account but the whole policy of locking articles seems inconsistent and unfair. If IP Editors are allowed they should be allowed, locking articles seems like the wrong answer. Wikipedia does not feel like an encyclopedia that is open for all to edit when all it takes is a few IP editors misbehaving to get the whole page locked. -- (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the setting you're referring to, pending changes, is not supposed to be used on pages with a high edit rate, like the page has now. It's unfortunate that well meaning contributors can't edit the page, but general practice is to protect pages that are frequently vandalized like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism didn't seem frequent to me.
The one IP editor I linked to in my earlier comment was the bulk of the recent vandalism, repeatedly deleting almost the same information and not making any effort to discuss how it might be included in a way that he didn't disagree with (there was a consensus on the talk page to keep the information).
the rest was the usual back and forth, some edits better than others not what I'd call vandalism (even right after you locked the page 2 registered users were disputing the cast list in the infobox, completely ignoring the Talk page, where it seemed they were almost at a consensus.)
So again the general practice seems arbitrary and unfair and in this case unnecessary so far. if this process was automatically for high traffic articles (not arbitrary) or if no IP editors were allowed at all, let's stop pretending it is really open. the inconsistency of Wikipedia policies is unfortunate.
Nevermind, on the upside this encourages me to stop timewasting on Wikipedia. Please though in future try to keep page locking as a last resort. -- (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, you are free to request a second opinion from another admin by posting at WP:RFUP if you disagree with my judgment. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Deccan Chronicle

Hi, there is this website for the newspaper Deccan Chronicle that does not regularly maintain archives. Bcos of that, dead links are frequent. I therefore request that a bot regularly monitor DC references and automatically archive them on Internet archive/Webcite as soon as they are added. Do u know of any such bot, or can u create any such? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong person here, I don't really do anything with bots. This page is probably the best place to ask. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

R. Kelly sockpuppet.... again

Hey Mark, I am not sure if you remember this sock puppet case, but the person has returned as User talk: BlackPanties. Upon account creation he restored R. Kelly & Jay-Z and The World's Greatest (album), two articles created by the sockmaster and that have been restored by his sockpuppets in the past. STATic message me! 18:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but it looks like someone beat me to it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

i don't know what you are talking about. i never changed anything.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently someone else who edited from your IP address did then. It's possible that there are multiple people making edits that are assigned to one address. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warrior

Hi Mark, could you take a look at User:Jsqqq777 when you have a moment. They have been warned for edit warring on two articles Fyodor Pirotsky and Élie Metchnikoff. Although they haven't continued after warnings, the level of warring is probably worthy of a block considering the IP they warred with is blocked. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like they've stopped by now, so I'll probably hold off, though a block would have been good at the time. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Mate you're working hard, take this from me as token of appreciation. Soham 07:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How to get article source just before deletion ?: Merchant sharing

Hello Mark, I didn't save the content of the just-deleted page Merchant sharing. Could you save it in a Draft zone as proposed or give me a temporary access to history so I can save it locally. I am pretty sure someone will try to create a page about it in a near future. It won't be me !, but I like to save the article just before deletion. Thank you Pelinquin (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved it to User:Pelinquin/Merchant sharing for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Merci ! (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

kikin Inc. deletion

Hi Mark,

I was never notified of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kikin Inc.. I was the primary author of the article. A cursory glance at the contributors list would've indicated this. The article had 10+ unique third-party sources. Please un-delete the page. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 16:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to restore it, as a couple contributors felt that it was heavily promotional. If you'd like the artile to be undeleted, my advice would be to create a draft version first, making sure it was more neutral than the last. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you get me the source of the previous version? I don't want to start from scratch again -- after all the time that was invested in the old one. I'd be happy to edit and produce a more-neutral drat of the old article -- if you just give me the source code of the old one. Thanks. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 03:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've moved it to User:arjun G. Menon/Kikin Inc. so you can clean it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Move like this

I liked your move: "I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed above, including by those who I often have radical differences in opinion with.", - one link goes to "awesomely weird", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you appreciated my comments :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Did you know that a blue duck attacks the German Main page right now? - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Great! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Userpage Request

Hey Mark, could you fully protect my userpage? Also close my request at WP:RFPP. ///EuroCarGT 00:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your logic here... but sure, I did it for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Oh, just wanted to remove those edit tags from the page. ///EuroCarGT 00:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you're doing now with the code, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the subpage is still editable which is great! ///EuroCarGT 00:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Orly Ganor

In your recent fine work in closing of an AFD, you made an edit to Orly Ganor, apparently missing that that article had been bundled into the AFD. Could you please delete that as well? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I got it now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Francisco Cevallos, Jr.

I missed this being closed.

You closed it, but didn't provide any explanation of your decision.

The decision would presumably be based on whether Ecuador's highest league is not fully professional or not. Evidence was provided in the discussion that it was fully professional, and the only refutation is that this shouldn't be discussed in an AFD discussion. (which I don't buy ... surely if an article is being proposed for deletion because the league isn't fully professional, then the discussion should centre about whether the league is fully professional or not).

In addition to the arguments listed in the AFD, I'm sure you've seen how much Ecudorean football is shown on TV, and the calibre of play. It's startling that this is even a topic for discussion! Although I'm not trying to change your decision here. But can I ask that you provide an explanation for your deletion? Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I understand your reasoning here, but I'm hesitant to give it much weight as that league isn't included on the football project's list. I suggest you open a discussion about the league at the football project and then I'll reevaluate based on consensus there. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't find discussions there seem to get properly discussed. There's been a few recently. Someone points out sources that a league is fully professional. Someone else dismisses for various technical reasons, but doesn't manage to provide any sources that say otherwise, or refute the sources, other than for technical reasons. Proper discussion doesn't occur. I was thinking of going to deletion review, to generate a proper discussion. But that would be easier if the closing admin had made a statement. BTW, I took the liberty of adding a reflist to the closing, to make the one reference in there easier to access. On one hand that violates the do not modify, but on the other hand, it's difficult to pull out that reference otherwise. Please delete if you think I overstepped. Nfitz (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, absent a consensus that the league is fully professional, I'm not inclined to take action here. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't asking you for action. I didn't think you were in a place for action without a discussion about the professionality of the league. I was just asking you to document the basis for the deletion in your closure, and telling you I'm thinking of going to deletion review to have the discussion of whether the league is fully professional (given that there are tumbleweeds rolling through WP:FPL where such discussions should take place). Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'd suggest linking to this discussion in your statement at deletion review. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not about to rush into it though ... not enough hours in the day ... Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, let me know how it turns out. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ayaan Chawla

Respected Administrator Mark Arsten, can I create Ayaan Chawla article? I have created an article myself with good references & metirial. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Article: Checksoon and reply :) WR

Sorry, but facebook, linkedin, and company websites aren't considered good references. See WP:IRS for what we look for when selecting good references. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Respected Administrator Mark Arsten, I have added some new good references - Microsoft, Intel, College Website & etc. and I have added facebook, linkedin, and company websites because I wanted to add photos as reference so that was available only on these websites kindly review again visit: PradeepChowdhury. WR :) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What we need is coverage from newspapers and magazines, I don't see any of that. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hey, Mark. I just ran across the newly created article Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions. On first reading, it struck me as rather non-neutral. For example, the opening sentence states: "The Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions (BIPPS) is a right-wing pressure group that promotes itself as 'an independent research and educational institution offering free-market solutions to Kentucky's most pressing problems.'" I'm not even sure the organization is all that notable, but I don't have time right now to run the references, which are several, to see how reliable they are and how much coverage they give the topic. I was about to tag the article with {{POV}}, but as my political biases are pretty well known (I make no attempt to hide them, although I try to keep them in check while editing), I wanted to get a second opinion and make sure I'm giving the article a fair chance. Would you see what you think when you have a minute? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've commented on the talk page there, looks like someone already tagged it. I'm not too familiar with SoureWatch, but it seems like they may do things differently than we do. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Always like to make sure I'm keeping my own POV in check. Seems like maybe I wasn't too far off on this one. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Robedia SPI

Currently they are all tagged as sockpuppets of Robedia, the user under which I filed it. Looking at the blocked accounts, though, User:1wikideb1 seems to be the master, being older than Robedia by a good ten months. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I hate when I do this. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I fixed the important stuff, I think the redirect is enough for the rest. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
If I had looked into things a bit deeper and actually properly identified the master myself (which, looking back on things, should not have been so hard if I also managed to identify Junotemple, but then again, I was using the Dutch customs and etiquette + debutantes/balls as primary method of checking), this would not have happened either, so I'd say that I am at least as much to blame as you. And yeah, so long as the investigation is filed properly and the master tagged and all that rot, it ought to be fine. They'll get there one way or another. (Though I of course hope there will be no reason for anyone to get there simply because they do not return) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I recall seeing some debutante sock a while ago, I didn't look into it too closely though. Strange situation... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Well, I've now put the three major articles hit by the socks (Dutch customs and etiquette, Debutante and International Debutante Ball) on my watchlist. Should they return, I'll hopefully spot them (though sadly, beyond the topic of interest, there seems to be relatively little similarity between certain accounts, or rather account groups--Robedia, Junotemple and Timbot18 were a clear group (even though the edits themselves, except for the slip-up by Timbot18 on Richardw's talkpage, are not all that similar in nature even if they are in area, nor are the usernames similar); Doremiabc and Mirandakerraustralia have very similar editing patterns to each other but not to the previous group and dissimilar usernames from both each other and the previous group and are through posting on Ballopedia's talkpage somewhat connected to Junotemple but not Robedia or Timbot18; Abs123123abc was a sleeper with a similar username to Doremiabc; Ballopedia is vaguely similar in username to Robedia but beyond area of interest dissimilar in edits to Robedia; their edits share more in common with Timbot18's debutante-related edits; 1wikideb1 shares the interest in debutantes/etc. with the remaining group but can behaviourally primarily be linked to Robedia (mainly through their edit summaries) and not so much the others. It might merely be because I'm rather cynical, but it would not surprise me if 1wikideb1 was a "good hand" account of the November '13 sock-puppet-cluster on the debutante pages, especially because they were already editing with at least one sock on that page by then (Robedia). Not that it matters, as that cluster would by now be stale. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just in case

If this starts up again Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Curtis_Blake_.28edit_.7C_talk_.7C_history_.7C_protect_.7C_delete_.7C_links_.7C_watch_.7C_logs_.7C_views.29 are you saying AN/I, or did I misinterpret? Dan653 (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe ANI, but AN3 might be possible too if he keeps reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Just to let you know, DIZwikwiki (talk · contribs) just appealed their block (applied by you). Best, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've asked the CU to comment on his explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of

Hi Mark,

I've just noticed that the entry about our company has been deleted.

The reason stated was due to misinformation regarding the Tech Track 100 award. Whilst the award did go to Netbasic, is a trading style of Netbasic. The award given was due to the growth of We therefore felt it fair that we attribute the award to

Please will you consider undeletion and if not propose next steps.


Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, to have the article undeleted, we'd have to see that there's in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in what we consider reliable sources (WP:RS). Can you offer evidence of this? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Anachronisms

If the article about The Anachronisms cannot be restored for the reason you gave, would it be possible to get a copy of the page as well as a history of the edits? Dulcimerzither (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, it was deleted via WP:PROD so it can be restored at any time (although it could be subsequently nominated for deletion). Would you like me to restore it for you? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Iron Man: Rise of Technovore rises again

You deleted Iron Man: Rise of Technovore as a result of an AfD and made a redirect. Letting you know that a new article has been created - and there's been some edit warring about reducing it to a redirect. I thought of wading in but it is both longer and much better referenced. However, you may want to launch a second AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, there are new reliable sources, so it might be acceptable to leave it as is. I'll notify the person who nominated to for deletion and let them renominate it if they aren't satisfied with the current version. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


Please you don't have to keep the newest Simpsons season protected again. That stated vandalism was caused by my "sock-puppet" accounts and no one else, I learned my lesson and won't argue under an alias again. Please unlock it.--CastellanetaFan (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, it looks like there might have been more people causing problems. I can take another look at it later though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Low hanging fruit

This is one of the more interesting cases of vandalism I've seen in a while: [34] (Must click on version to see in all its glory...sheesh) Account is only editing this article [35], has been reverted repeatedly by multiple users and is still clueless so far... [36]. I placed a warning template at their talk, if they do this again, well, please watchlist and do as you see fit. Montanabw(talk) 05:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's funny :) Well, let's see if they take heed of the final warning. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


You left a talkback on my talk page? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, it was in regards to the Iron Man: Rise of Technovore section above. It's been recreated, but with better sources, so I'm not going to speedy it but you are free to re-nominate it for deletion if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

PC --> semi

Hi Mark, looking at the page history of Lana Del Rey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it might be worth semi'ing it for a week or two. PC doesn't seem to be having a lot of affect and it's been bordering on a high edit rate for the last few days. Up to you, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, given the edit rate I think semi is best here. I've changed it now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wirtland (micronation)

Can you please take the AFD tags off this article? I closed the AFD[37] as a WP:NADC speedy keep. No explanation given for the nomination. Administrator Nyttend comes into an article he hasn't edited in over 4 years, nominates it for deletion without giving a reason, then blanks the page WITHOUT EXPLANATION. Check the page history....William 17:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also note Nyttend has once again turned the page into a redirect. Without discussion or a AFD. One editor other than myself object....William 17:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much time to look into this today, but my feelings on topic the matter are: boldly redirecting an article is an Ok thing to do, but if the redirect is objected to, it's always best to restore the page and take it to WP:AFD to settle things instead of re-redirecting it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh I am very familar with WP:BOLD but when you do that, you leave an explanation not 'Better idea yet' shortly after you start a deletion page with no explanation. Then when someone(Not me the first time around) undoes the redirect that's when WP:BRD kicks in. Nyttend chose instead to make the page into a redirect again. I undid it and told him[38] to take it to a proper AFD....William 18:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You may be interested to know (1) that despite what William told you, I never even edited the AFD that he closed, (2) despite what William told you, I redirected it rather than blanking it, and (3) the only other person who reverted the redirect was urged to do it by the website's "PR manager". This isn't some neutral person reverting the redirect or another neutral person coming along and creating the AFD with wording that happens to be identical to the website's comments: this is an organised PR campaign with a Wikipedia obsession — check the main page of their blog; it has four separate stories regarding articles about them in different Wikipedias. Meanwhile, I've told William repeatedly what I was doing, but when another admin gives him a diff to prove that I didn't create the nomination, he responds with "You don't be absurd" and persists in accusing me of doing something I quite obviously didn't do. I gave him multiple warnings up to {{uw-npa4}} for making "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", but he kept on going. Checking what I've said and linked easily demonstrated to someone else what I had been doing, but his persistence in disrupting the process of fighting PR spam masquerading as an article (even ridiculing the idea that it's spam) is only enabling the PR spam as well as violating our civility standards. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I doubt it's notable, to be honest. A renomination at Afd might be best here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)