Apologies in advance for the bulk of text. If you think this sort of question is better suited for a board for discussion, please let me know.

I wanted to pathetically apologize for taking you time on what I see was a very, very stupid G5. I do still have a question about User:Lcmedia and contributions of blocked users in general. I do admit I entirely missed G5 for banned and that indefinite block is different. Since bans are so incredibly rare in comparison to blocks and given out very specifically it took me a minute to realize how rare that tag actually is. Even so, I'm wondering what is done with recent contributions of users that are blocked. Generally I understand that "nothing" is the likely answer since many users would have a long contribution history and things can be manually checked without much complication. This case is different-- it was a new user created that was blocked (I'd assume) for COI posting and got away with a large number of edits in a short amount of time. On the Lloyd E. Rader, Sr. article, I put a normal PROD on after noticing the COI bit and don't like to slap CSD tags and I can't even think of why this article would have qualified. I then looked into the other articles this user had made and noticed a very distinct pattern of the same IPs coming in and making edits to the same set of articles in a short amount of time on an infrequent basis, and reviewing them all it was fairly obvious every article was a person or work related to a person that happens to work at a company that shares this username and those specific IPs were almost the sole contributors to all of them. By then I saw the indefinite block was on and figured that was that, thus CSD'd since in my fuzzy reading I assumed that meant this was spam.

New account creates an arguably COI article and is soon blocked for COI issues = ...alright. I assumed too much. So the question is what is done in these cases? Is a generic PROD the only method for the COI articles? I know even then it can only go if it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. Still, the upshot is that COI accounts can be created, publish possible COI articles and then even after a valdalism/COI indefinite block the content stays on Wikipedia until a normal slow process cycles out their content? What if articles these COI users create are never noticed? It troubles me since it almost sounds like we're admitting that people can come in and create questionable articles that barely pass a possible A7 or G11 CSD, yet their advertising stays in the encyclopedia and their goals were likely accomplished regardless. I entirely understand that Wikipedia is about our guidelines and that they're very particular in the serious issues of blocking and content deletion, but that doesn't mean there might be odd cases with things that look like outside parties gaming the system happening that go by unnoticed. Even if this has nothing to do with me personally and these things might be common, since I spotted this originally I feel responsible to follow it all through 'til concerns are resolved. Thanks... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lcmedia was blocked for a violation of the username policy, which does not confer any particular black mark on any contributions from the account. The articles should be assessed individually regardless of who created them, except in actual cases of banned user contributions, which can and should be removed on sight. If they are blatant spam or meet any of the other criteria for speedy deletion they can be deleted that way. If they do not, a WP:PROD or deletion discussion is the way to go. I know it's a lot slower, but sometimes a spammer "screws up in reverse" and actually posts something that can be retained once the advertising language is removed from it. Also, as long as there is a deletion related tag on the article they haven't accomplished their goal of spamming Wikipedia because there is a big fat notice on the article saying it may be deleted as spam. Spamming is one of the more serious problems here, and rooting it out and removing it is neither a small nor an easy task, but we shouldn't automatically delete articles solely because the user who created them may have had a conflict of interest. If you have specific questions about speedy deletion, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion is pretty well trafficked by experienced users and there is always a lively discussion ongoing there. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I just put a PROD on Throwaway kids. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name block might not have a more specific reason, but you're free to look at its history and see it only edited articles related to people that happen to work for a company with the same name as that user... that's why I said COI specifically but since I don't know if it was bot or user reported as a username violation I'm not sure how well researched it might have been. Ironically, that breach of username policy wasn't at all necessary since most all of the articles that user has edited are of substantial notability with excellent credentials. It may well be that those great articles were created under the same COI situation, but they're far far beyond the uncited stub like today's, thus a PROD Anyway, all seems well in this case since I've personally gone through every article that user or IPs with the exact same edit pattern on the exact same articles have contributed to significantly and I'm updating citations and sources to make sure they're in order. In this case the un-spam seems to qualify, and really rather that user come back under a neutral name so that they can add on more to their apparently extensive knowledge of poverty documentaries.

I hate CSD for the most part and hate how subjective A7 and G11 are, and I'll again go back to not actually tagging anything. I spend more time looking for articles to remove A7s from after witnessing a few strange things, and I'd much prefer to normal PROD and send a message to a newer user if things seem to be in good faith, assuming the article looks like it could be saved just be removing a link or two to a personal website or self-published press release. If it's not improved on from there it'll get filtered through generically after a week, or if the tag is removed without improvement then it's for AfD. I'm actually kind of proud about the anti-patrolling since it's resulted in a few good articles being created and updated and even someone who was particularly angry I removed their CSD suggestions has turned over to un-tagging. Thank you for the other info on that... it is useful. Bah, CSD is a curse. I saw a suggestion dug somewhere in the admin suggestion forum that CSD'd articles need to be looked at by two admins before a deletion, and despite being a good idea it was deemed impossible due to resources available. Yes, it's odd that I'm reading admin discussions for more information on deletion process, but since I almost exclusively patrol or discuss in XfDs I figure that's a better source of information. Well, better than generically going along with the just the basic guidelines or copying other editor's methods, including breathtaking philosophical AfD comments like "Delete, no google news". Slow deletion is good. So long as it's not harassment, direct solicitation or nonsensical gibberish that doesn't fit the most basic standards of "article" or even a stub, I'd rather it be done slowly for evaluation and good faith toward author or other user improvements.

Sorry for all rambling, but think of it as me wanting to make you job easier? :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who blocked Lcmedia, following a report at WP:UAA. They certainly did seem to be engaging in COI editing, but the block was just over the name. And please do keep looking for invalid A7 tags, it's a real problem and anything that reduces the backlog of admin work is always appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise me what I should do here: Talk:Anti-Shannar_riots_of_Sivakasi. I had made myself clear that I didn't added anything to the article. Still people are accusing me of vandalism. Axxn (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding new remarks to the talk page as you were leaving this. Hopefully the ip will agree to the mediation, but so far he seems to be stuck in a battleground mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beeblebrox. I saw this issue an ANI a couple of days ago. Since the IPs who have posted on Talk seem to have declared they will not follow dispute resolution, I think you may have sufficient grounds to lift the full protection and impose semi instead. Good-faith IPs should not be excluded, but I don't see any of those at present. ("We are not here to contribute to your stupid site which is run by freaks. I dont have to respect the rules of wikipedia"). EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly did that to indicate to them the seriousness of the situation. I went ahead and lowered it to semi. Looks like this might be heading toward AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've volunteered to file an AfD if requested. Please think carefully about this, because the people who are finding problems with the article are behaving so badly that some might be blocked for disruptive editing. (Some kind of a web forum could be involved). If they become the main participants in an AfD, that could become its own fiasco. The fact that only registered users can file AfDs does have its benefits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I specified that they had to come up with at least one reason based on policy. I'm just trying to mediate this thing, for all I know they may actually be right despite the awful way they are choosing to interact with others. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could use one. Don't miss the gallery at User:Noroton. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for applying this clue - I hope it takes. I, too, noticed he'd posted a note on the talk page of an editor involved in his topic ban, just in case the horse wasn't dead enough. I was tempted to post a similar avuncular suggestion myself, but didn't want to be accused of bullying by his supporter. Thanks again, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can only hope. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm asking in the right format, but you said the information I posted about her was improperly sourced. I'm not sure I follow. Everything was 100% accurate. Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennief (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for asking, but are you perhaps having a little joke? I ask because the idea that a pornographic website called "Exploited Black Teens" and your say-so that this person was in these films falls into the realm of laughable as far as proper sourcing. Please make yourself aware of these policies:

• The standard for inclusion is verification by reliable sources
• Original research and personal observations are not suitable sources for encyclopedic content
• Any article that is a biography of a living person must not have material that is improperly sourced, especially if that material is controversial or negative
• User should not engage in edit warring

The content policies exist in order to insure that Wikipedia is accurate, neutral, and does not publish libelous information that could lead to Wikipedia being sued. Instead of edit warring you should comment on the article's talk page, and provide some proper sources to substantiate your claims. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chelmswood. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmswood. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's time for an RFC/U regarding Ottava? Crafty (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I hope you're not about to ask me to put it together though. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Francis - LA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]