![]() |
The Sweeper. |
For cleaning up Wikipedia and sweeping away the dirt (edit trolls). D Namtar 14:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
Sorry, Twinkle didn't carry over my RFPP message for some reason; I was trying to request another admin to review the protection, because I'm WP:INVOLVED on the article. Since the protection was specifically for WP:BLP reasons, I felt I was justified in making the protection anyway, but wanted confirmation. Qwyrxian ( talk) 14:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Salvio giuliano, I would like to invite you to join WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. You have moved 2 drafts there correctly so I think that you would do well. ~~
Ebe123~~ (+)
talk
Contribs
15:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help re: the recent spate of incoming attacks etc. Do these people ever get bored? - Sitush ( talk) 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I see you responded to my report in the WP:UAA. If the user doesn't change his name, should I leave that report or re-report it? -- Luke (Talk) 13:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, is there any way those pages can be deleted without having to go through a massive debate about them. They haven't been edited in years and it looks like the user has no intention of using them. They actually serve no purpose, so why do they exist? – Pee Jay 14:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
User 08OceanBeach SD was blocked by administrator Fastily [1]. He filled an unblock request and it was denied by you [2] who endorsed Fastily's reasons to block him for the second time. User then filled another unblock request (using the same template) arguing that "he understands now the 3RR" and saying he was not gambling with the system. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this time adminsitrator Jpgordon accepted the request. I believe (but I'm unsure) that you can't appeal an unblock for the second time, but directly to the administrator that blocked you, as you suggested to OceanBeach.
Accordingly with WP, once a block is reviewed, endorsed and the unblock request denied by another administrator different than the sanctioning administrator, another one "should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy)".
In my opinion administrator Jpgordon is missing out very valuable information (2nd. block [3], 1st. block^ [4]), such as the fact that 08OceanBeach SD has been blocked in the past for the same reason (and dismissing the opinion of other users involved in a talk) and that he aknowledged the 3RR and edit-warring policy very well. In simple words, he was already well aware of these policies but this time he went further and tried to gamble with the system by returning to edit-war past the 24 hour period. This was the main reason that you, the first reviewing administrator, denied his unblock request and endorsed Fastily's 1 week block.
I think this is important and that's why I'm asking you to take notice of this and do whatever is necessary if this unblock was illegally or poorly lifted. In my experience user 08OceanBeach SD is a hard-line editor who is never willing to take other users' opinions, unless there's a bunch of them agaist (and not always, as proved in the first block request weeks ago). Thanks. Karni Fro ( Talk to me) 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In this case, he wrote a very good unblock request (had I seen it, I'd probably have been the one unblocking). Should he start edit warring again, he'll be blocked again. In short, the block had outlasted its usefulness. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there SALVIO, VASCO from Portugal here,
regarding this "user" from Colombia (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.84.79.135), the situation has escalated beyond control, this punk has increased his bombardment, now resorting to vile racist insults, all this because of a run-in in the Quique Flores, a neverending one might i add. I was never unpolite to him, only tried to explain the consensus we at the football forums had reached, and several people have reverted him in said article, not just me, and he continues to attack only me! The harshest thing i told him - and AFTER he started vandalizing my userpage, never BEFORE - was if he had mental problems it was not my fault, asking to be left alone.
I am sorry, i did not control myself and responded in the only manner this folks understand, leaving an offensive message in his account, User:Xxxx693. If you feel i merit a block, i will not hold any grudge, nor will i contest it.
Attentively, happy week - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 22:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You recently hatted a sub-section of the ThisThat2011 ANI case with the subject line "hatting drama". I do not see why you perceive my edits to that section as drama, especially since my post was made in the context of the recent outreach efforts by the Wikimedia foundation to recruit about 1000 students from the Pune region to edit on Wikipedia ( Relevant e-mail). I felt it was important to point out that the Indian geography is different from other parts of the world (in terms of population density and other related factors) and reckless talk of blocking of an entire network contradicts with the Wikimedia Foundation's goals in the Pune region. I would request that you please un-hat relevant portions of the discussion. Zuggernaut ( talk) 06:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I come from Italy and my only ties to India are these two facts: that I've been wishing to visit it for quite some time and that, back when I was attending Law school, I familiarised myself with Hindu law. So, yes, I believe that in this case I'm as neutral as one can get, which doesn't mean, however, that I have no opinions, but it merely means that I have no preconceptions and that my opinions are the consequence of what everyone has to say during a given discussion. Which leads us back to my original point: that subsection wasn't really useful, in my opinion, because it consisted almost entirely of idle recrimination and what wasn't recrimination was off-topic, as I said before; quite frankly, the “threat” was neither serious nor believable, as nobody in their right mind would ever rangeblock so many people, but apart from that it had asolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand: namely Thisthat's conduct and not rangeblocks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Salvio. Thanks for the rollback feature. If i'm in troubles, or maybe, if if i have doubts, i'll contact you.-- Frigotoni ...i'm here; 09:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you point me toward the original MFD before it was relisted? I am tempted to speedy close this as WP:SNOW due to all of the SPA and Socking involved but I wanted to be fully informed first.--v/r - T P 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
They seem to be confirming he is an authority in his field – after several unsuccessful attempts at promotion, this MfD close finally enables him to promote himself on Wikipedia. The "delete" votes were very vocal that this WP:FAKEARTICLE should be deleted to prevent the user from promoting himself. I again ask you to remove the references section. Cunard ( talk) 04:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
userpage}}
. Let's see if my changes stick...
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
17:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I made the following changes to your 60 hour block of 86.161.34.137 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) due to abusive editing of the talk page: I reblocked the user for 1 week and revoked talk page access. Regards, causa sui ( talk) 23:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for moving Richard Bitner to mainspace and adding categories to it. Best, Cunard ( talk) 23:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just in regards to [5]; typically this would usually only be done after the block has achieved some 'permanence'. Keep in mind that an indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent one, or one that will necessarily be in place for a long time. It is my understanding that the user still plans to submit additional unblock proposals and (imo) removing the permissions at this stage seems a bit premature and may send the wrong signal. – xeno talk 00:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for what you did just now. Perhaps you could salt all those articles to stop them being recreated, as you will see from the logs that this is repeated pattern of abuse. Take a look also at the articles created by the same user that were also just deleted by JohnCD ( talk · contribs). Thanks. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 10:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Inks.LWC ( talk) 14:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Salvio
Greetings
This is with reference to the deletion of Justmonkeying Childen's Library. I would like to make the following points just for your reference
1. Ahmedabad city with a population of over 5 Million does not have a dedicated Children's Library. 2. The only Libraries are Toy/Book Libraries for the elite( Franchise Libraries) and actually carry a collection of say 800 books 3.JustMonkeying is a community based Children's Library running out of a converted living room with subscriptions at $2 a month.
Please do understand that , reading and especially reading for children in not a priority in underdeveloped countries and this library has been financed by concerned individuals who want to make a difference to the world around them . And as a parting citation since your profession is that of a Lawyer , there are several Children's Libraries listed in Wiki and that too with a great deal of spelling errors
Thanks And Regards
Najanaja67 ( talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this can be useful to you, but here you can find a list of alternative outlets which have different requirements. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the "references" for Leg cross - they're spam links promoting external websites. That's why I nominated it for speedy deletion. The article appears to exist only to promote those links. Prioryman ( talk) 15:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
just dont understand why you deleted a page that was under construction and not yet finished? Rsm66 ( talk) 21:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Sweeper. |
For cleaning up Wikipedia and sweeping away the dirt (edit trolls). D Namtar 14:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
Sorry, Twinkle didn't carry over my RFPP message for some reason; I was trying to request another admin to review the protection, because I'm WP:INVOLVED on the article. Since the protection was specifically for WP:BLP reasons, I felt I was justified in making the protection anyway, but wanted confirmation. Qwyrxian ( talk) 14:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Salvio giuliano, I would like to invite you to join WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. You have moved 2 drafts there correctly so I think that you would do well. ~~
Ebe123~~ (+)
talk
Contribs
15:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help re: the recent spate of incoming attacks etc. Do these people ever get bored? - Sitush ( talk) 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I see you responded to my report in the WP:UAA. If the user doesn't change his name, should I leave that report or re-report it? -- Luke (Talk) 13:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, is there any way those pages can be deleted without having to go through a massive debate about them. They haven't been edited in years and it looks like the user has no intention of using them. They actually serve no purpose, so why do they exist? – Pee Jay 14:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
User 08OceanBeach SD was blocked by administrator Fastily [1]. He filled an unblock request and it was denied by you [2] who endorsed Fastily's reasons to block him for the second time. User then filled another unblock request (using the same template) arguing that "he understands now the 3RR" and saying he was not gambling with the system. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this time adminsitrator Jpgordon accepted the request. I believe (but I'm unsure) that you can't appeal an unblock for the second time, but directly to the administrator that blocked you, as you suggested to OceanBeach.
Accordingly with WP, once a block is reviewed, endorsed and the unblock request denied by another administrator different than the sanctioning administrator, another one "should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy)".
In my opinion administrator Jpgordon is missing out very valuable information (2nd. block [3], 1st. block^ [4]), such as the fact that 08OceanBeach SD has been blocked in the past for the same reason (and dismissing the opinion of other users involved in a talk) and that he aknowledged the 3RR and edit-warring policy very well. In simple words, he was already well aware of these policies but this time he went further and tried to gamble with the system by returning to edit-war past the 24 hour period. This was the main reason that you, the first reviewing administrator, denied his unblock request and endorsed Fastily's 1 week block.
I think this is important and that's why I'm asking you to take notice of this and do whatever is necessary if this unblock was illegally or poorly lifted. In my experience user 08OceanBeach SD is a hard-line editor who is never willing to take other users' opinions, unless there's a bunch of them agaist (and not always, as proved in the first block request weeks ago). Thanks. Karni Fro ( Talk to me) 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In this case, he wrote a very good unblock request (had I seen it, I'd probably have been the one unblocking). Should he start edit warring again, he'll be blocked again. In short, the block had outlasted its usefulness. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there SALVIO, VASCO from Portugal here,
regarding this "user" from Colombia (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.84.79.135), the situation has escalated beyond control, this punk has increased his bombardment, now resorting to vile racist insults, all this because of a run-in in the Quique Flores, a neverending one might i add. I was never unpolite to him, only tried to explain the consensus we at the football forums had reached, and several people have reverted him in said article, not just me, and he continues to attack only me! The harshest thing i told him - and AFTER he started vandalizing my userpage, never BEFORE - was if he had mental problems it was not my fault, asking to be left alone.
I am sorry, i did not control myself and responded in the only manner this folks understand, leaving an offensive message in his account, User:Xxxx693. If you feel i merit a block, i will not hold any grudge, nor will i contest it.
Attentively, happy week - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 22:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You recently hatted a sub-section of the ThisThat2011 ANI case with the subject line "hatting drama". I do not see why you perceive my edits to that section as drama, especially since my post was made in the context of the recent outreach efforts by the Wikimedia foundation to recruit about 1000 students from the Pune region to edit on Wikipedia ( Relevant e-mail). I felt it was important to point out that the Indian geography is different from other parts of the world (in terms of population density and other related factors) and reckless talk of blocking of an entire network contradicts with the Wikimedia Foundation's goals in the Pune region. I would request that you please un-hat relevant portions of the discussion. Zuggernaut ( talk) 06:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I come from Italy and my only ties to India are these two facts: that I've been wishing to visit it for quite some time and that, back when I was attending Law school, I familiarised myself with Hindu law. So, yes, I believe that in this case I'm as neutral as one can get, which doesn't mean, however, that I have no opinions, but it merely means that I have no preconceptions and that my opinions are the consequence of what everyone has to say during a given discussion. Which leads us back to my original point: that subsection wasn't really useful, in my opinion, because it consisted almost entirely of idle recrimination and what wasn't recrimination was off-topic, as I said before; quite frankly, the “threat” was neither serious nor believable, as nobody in their right mind would ever rangeblock so many people, but apart from that it had asolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand: namely Thisthat's conduct and not rangeblocks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Salvio. Thanks for the rollback feature. If i'm in troubles, or maybe, if if i have doubts, i'll contact you.-- Frigotoni ...i'm here; 09:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you point me toward the original MFD before it was relisted? I am tempted to speedy close this as WP:SNOW due to all of the SPA and Socking involved but I wanted to be fully informed first.--v/r - T P 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
They seem to be confirming he is an authority in his field – after several unsuccessful attempts at promotion, this MfD close finally enables him to promote himself on Wikipedia. The "delete" votes were very vocal that this WP:FAKEARTICLE should be deleted to prevent the user from promoting himself. I again ask you to remove the references section. Cunard ( talk) 04:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
userpage}}
. Let's see if my changes stick...
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
17:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I made the following changes to your 60 hour block of 86.161.34.137 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) due to abusive editing of the talk page: I reblocked the user for 1 week and revoked talk page access. Regards, causa sui ( talk) 23:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for moving Richard Bitner to mainspace and adding categories to it. Best, Cunard ( talk) 23:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just in regards to [5]; typically this would usually only be done after the block has achieved some 'permanence'. Keep in mind that an indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent one, or one that will necessarily be in place for a long time. It is my understanding that the user still plans to submit additional unblock proposals and (imo) removing the permissions at this stage seems a bit premature and may send the wrong signal. – xeno talk 00:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for what you did just now. Perhaps you could salt all those articles to stop them being recreated, as you will see from the logs that this is repeated pattern of abuse. Take a look also at the articles created by the same user that were also just deleted by JohnCD ( talk · contribs). Thanks. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 10:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Inks.LWC ( talk) 14:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Salvio
Greetings
This is with reference to the deletion of Justmonkeying Childen's Library. I would like to make the following points just for your reference
1. Ahmedabad city with a population of over 5 Million does not have a dedicated Children's Library. 2. The only Libraries are Toy/Book Libraries for the elite( Franchise Libraries) and actually carry a collection of say 800 books 3.JustMonkeying is a community based Children's Library running out of a converted living room with subscriptions at $2 a month.
Please do understand that , reading and especially reading for children in not a priority in underdeveloped countries and this library has been financed by concerned individuals who want to make a difference to the world around them . And as a parting citation since your profession is that of a Lawyer , there are several Children's Libraries listed in Wiki and that too with a great deal of spelling errors
Thanks And Regards
Najanaja67 ( talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this can be useful to you, but here you can find a list of alternative outlets which have different requirements. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the "references" for Leg cross - they're spam links promoting external websites. That's why I nominated it for speedy deletion. The article appears to exist only to promote those links. Prioryman ( talk) 15:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
just dont understand why you deleted a page that was under construction and not yet finished? Rsm66 ( talk) 21:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)