This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Based on edit pattern, it appears as though Rogue Gremlin has now created his third sock with DevilN dSkyz JerryGraf 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you had administered a 3RR violation over at Battlezone (on Sept. 26th) and had decided not to sprotect it at the time. The issue is still happening (in fact he kept it never stopped), and the user in question is using multiple anonymous to do the same edits over and over. He's just spacing them out more. Is there any way I can get an sprotect on the page? -- Marty Goldberg 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a Wikiquote admin looking into potential problems with our users. I see that you declined an unblock request on this IP address (after a username operating from this IP performed some WoW-style vandalism), saying "THis appears to be a fixed ip…". Could you tell me how you deduced this? RoadRunner (the IP range's registered operator) provides broadband connections to many residential communities, so while the assigned IP addresses may not change very often, many are probably officially dynamic. I ask because, if this address is indeed at least semi-permanent, we would definitely want to watch any users associated with it, but I also wouldn't want to unreasonably worry about bad-faith editing if it was truly dynamic. Thank you for your help. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. I'm very sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid that there may be trouble over at Cydonia Mensae again. The anon block there recently expired and our anon friend 193.203.82.194 has just come right back and altered the article to a POV and inaccurate state. I've not reverted this change yet to avoid triggering yet another edit war, but I have posted a request for him/her to clarify what they think is wrong with the article. I'll wait a day or two to see if that makes progress at all, but if it doesn't I suspect an edit war may result. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know what's up. Cheers, -- Plumbago 12:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Spartaz. Marty Nicolaus, the CEO of LifeRing, happens to be a copyright lawyer as his day job, and contends that there is no copyright violation if they give their permission for the information to be used. I believe that this means that they have to post permission somewhere on Wikipedia. I'm working with him to make sure that the information that gets posted maintains NPOV. Robert Rapplean 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz. I noticed you closed this AfD, saying the result was Delete and Salt. However, you did not say on what grounds this result was based. What were they? Thank you. Nick Graves 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I have another question. Since you're the closing admin for the deleted article, I wanted to check with you before going ahead with Lists of Christians. It would not contain a general list of individuals (which was the target of the criticism in the last two AfDs), but would rather be a navigational aid for existing lists of limited scope in the pattern of Lists of people. This type of list has precedent in such articles as Lists of Jews and Lists of Muslims, both of which have been deemed acceptable by community consensus. Such a list of lists would inevitably be similar in some respects to the deleted list, but would be different in a way that avoids what many editors have deemed to be problematic in the recent AfDs. Please let me know what you think. Nick Graves 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, on second thought I removed it straight away as they seemed to have stopped, but one of them went to RPP [1]. Phgao 08:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello u blocked me for 24 hours for breaking 3RR rule. I agree i needed this punishment but i think u should also look the circumstances and reason behind it. KNM and others were deliberately ignoring the sources and information added and reverting. This is not content dispute but deliberate breaking of rules under pretext of ignornce. Please see the message i pasted in 3rr section and do needful.
( Stateofart 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
This is case of hypocricy of KNM and his friends of removing sourced information and reverting without even looking at sources. Despite
request at his talk page and constant appeals thorugh edit summaries and presenting a
SOURCE which he choosed to ignore and delete
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5] sourced information along with others whom he hired for saving himself from 3RR
[6],
[7]
Earlier too despite many explainations and repeated requests by me to see source [8], [9], [10], [11]
and his friends [15], [16], [17], [18]
chose not to click and read the source and read what they call as 'POV' was endorsed by national newspaper,Times Of India. Note that this source is here from past few weeks and still KNM/others are ignoring and reverting deliberately. Also note that kannada script in Rahul Dravid is unwarrented since he is not a kannadiga. That means Aishwarya Rai should also have Marathi script. Above all KNM and others guard the pages together and leave no option for an individual to break some wikipedia rules. KNM and others should be punished for their deliberate ignoring of sources and starting a edit war. ( Stateofart 07:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
Sorry to bother you, but I happened to notice the report here. Since you were the original blocking administrator, it might be of interest/relevant to you. — LactoseTI T 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You said that Mostargue was a sock and has been blocked ( User_talk:Mostargue#Blocked). Where can I find the evidence that you have collected against the user? Also, if I violate 3rr, but am "constructively discussing changes on the talk page", then I will be also be warned and not blocked? Bless sins 19:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
So based on only two edits (the "third" one [19], and the "fourth" one [20]) you conclude that the user is a sockpuppet of Kirbytime. Did you compile any extensive evidence? Was there a checkuser that established a connection between the two? Did you even give the user any chance to defend him/herself before blocking him/her?
And after all that you give the user an indefinite block (one of the harshest punishments you can give). Pardon me, but maybe you should have taken extra steps before blocking the user.
Regarding 3rr. I'm not questioning your decision, nor am I asking you to revoke it. What is done, has been done and can't be changed. But I want a clarification for the future. Many users (myself included) have been blocked for 3rr while discussing changes. Why is it that whether a user is blocked, who has violated 3rr, depends on whether an admin think he/she is an "established good faith editor"? And who gets to decide whether an editor is "good faith" or not? Bless sins 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a discussion of Mostargue here. regarding the 3rr, I guess I will post something on WP:3rr's talk page. Bless sins 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. I came through an ANI report where i got to know that this user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user Kirbytime. Could you please explain to me the circumstances under which you took this decision? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you use the caption "Humbug" for your talk page link. With all due respect, but I don't think this is funny, but more liking ridiculing editors who want to discuss something with you. Pls consider using another title that isn't a borderline case of WP:Civil. Best regards Gray62 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have answered your question here: WP:3RRN#User:Str1977_reported_by_User:Bless_sins_.28Result:_.29
I hope you were not offended by me. I consider you an honest judge. Its just that we differ as to the formalities required to arrive at such opinions. This is a minor difference, and I hope you will understand. Bless sins 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind if I unblock Matt57 a bit early in recognition of the fact that he hasn't used any sock puppets or caused any huge fuss? - Jehochman Talk 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my intent. How can I make Peace. I do wish to help stop disruptions at Wikipedia. Can you advise accordingly? Please? Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You forgot about this. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You in the last case you decided that 3rr had been violated by mistake and didn't deserve a block. While that's fine, I'd like to point out that when I was blocked for 3rr, I had also breached 3rr by mistake. Anyways, I have asked this question here. Bless sins 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dale Hample. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/ c 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't have blocked the user as the user has made no edits to that template since his/her last warning, several hours ago. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, In view of the editing history of Honour of Richmond, I wondered if Regiment ( talk · contribs) could be a reincarnation of Lord Loxley ( talk · contribs). However, that talk page was deleted only a few days ago by ST47 ( talk · contribs). I think I had a look at Loxley's talk page just before the deletion, and if I remember correctly this was a banned user. I asked ST47 if the deletion was done at Regiment's request, but (s)he has not answered me yet. / Pieter Kuiper 07:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sources have been provided that verify his WP:MUSIC notability claims. Please reconsider your opinion. link T Rex | talk 00:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Any chance I could beggar you to see 90 Day Men? Thanks! Chubbles 04:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Spartaz, check out my reply to your report closure regarding the above user. Cheers, Anthøny 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you blocked 161.253.37.233 ( talk · contribs) as a sock of WOverstreet, I thought I'd mention that he appears to be back. He may also have a new account- Stunna990 ( talk · contribs). Same obsessive pattern of University of Florida-related editing. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations and welcome to the large and growing club of administrators who have blocked Geoeg for a three revert rule violation. His logs tells a story, and the account was only created on 2 October. He seems to me to be a single purpose account whose sole interest is to push some fringe theories. I am no expert in these fields but judging by the degree to which he has become involved in controversy and refuses to engage in meaningful discussion, I would doubt whether he can continue editing in this manner for long. (I think Dicklyon is not blameless but he seems to be a good faith user driven to the end of his teather by Geoeg's point of view pushing.)
What I'm wondering is whether it is better to take this problem to WP:AN/I for others to give their input, or just to give him a final warning to 'co-operate or get out'. Sam Blacketer 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have expanded the article and added references, see User:Biscuittin/DLM AG. If you approve, please move it back to DLM AG. Thanks for your help. Biscuittin 11:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Biscuittin 09:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any sources of this kind at present so I will leave DLM AG as a user page for now. Biscuittin 16:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I think I made a fair call regarding this AfD. As a rule, I don't revisit AfDs at WP:DRV. The default rule is keep an article if there is no consensus. Looking at it again, I probably should have written, keep without consensus or the like. I could have also not gotten involved as the closing admin, and rescued it myself. I can look for sources, if you wish. I'm no expert on the topic, although I constucted a bovine tongue (pun intended) at WorldCon in 2001. You may also go to DRV or grade me poorly when I come up for admin review in four months. Bearian 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems there is some disagreement about the idea of community banning him, most notably from Penwhale [23]. I'd think the way to go from here is Arbitration, what say you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Legend of the Green Dragon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Putting this here due to your initial comment in the deletion review which mentioned that it hadn't been talked over with you first. Neither Eric nor I (the other co-author of LoTGD) are heavy wikipedia users, so weren't aware that we should bring the request to you personally first. From my perspective, while LoTGD started out as an inspiration from LORD, it has long since grown into it's own unique and well-loved piece of software. On that reason alone, I think it is worthy of it's own page rather than a mere footnote or having it's information merged into LORD which is a completely different system. None of our code was actually derived from the LORD code, just the 'flavor' of the game. I would also request that the original page be restored since I believe it has merit in it's own right as an individual game and is, in no way at this state far from it's beginnings, a clone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.4.4 ( talk) 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
ok im off that uncalled for block in which I didn't do anything wrong.
So can you clarify for me what my restrictions are? Am I allowed to hit the undo button if somebody deletes information off an article (for example the diffs Komdori used in his report)? Or is that a violation of 1RR? What are the clear restrictions as to what I can do? I don't want Komdori run to ANI and start using an undo made by me as an excuse to get me hammered (like he tried to do with his report).
Oh, and how long does the 1RR rule apply? Good friend100 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi I'm just asking for the unblocking of User:Shshshsh. I can see he flared up a little in response to the comments at the FA article for Preity Zinta but given some of the comments it is easy to see why. However I do think he should have received a warning first rather than a straight blocking on which I'm sure he would havebacked off . It seems to me he has calmed down and that 24 hours is too long for a user who has done a lot of good for Indian film on wikiepdia. Could you unblock him ? I'm sure he wouldn't react again so soon . 12:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that this vote appears invalid by Sarvagnya on
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zintaand is done out of spite within an hour following a confronation on the article -please see
Shahrukh Khan history. It looks very suspicious to me that the above user came across this page after checking the contributions of Shahid following the edit war on that page and visisted the page specifically to give the "strongest oppose possible" -I find this utterly unacceptable that somebody would delibrately not give a genuine review of an article and attempt to jeopardise it because of a previous confrontation elsewhere.
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦
"Talk"?
12:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; yes, I eventually tracked it all down and realized it was a separate article/incident. Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Shshshsh has apparently evaded the 24 hour block you had imposed. He has made a series of edits as an anon user. Please see this his own message in his talk page. Request your action on this. Thanks, - KNM Talk 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Look I'm not going to try to fight anybody's cause but I have to say that you have blown this situation out of proportion and not helped things. Now I can see your justification for your course of actions but I feel you have been a little heavy handed here against somebody who is not a vandal. What you don't see is the indirect effects of your actions and how much content and work this user has put into other articles where wikipedia needs as many contributors as possible. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
OK Spartaz I've spoken to him see User talk:Shshshsh - I can see your course of action as you said. I think he has given an adequate apology and I think he was genuinely trying to help the article rather than vandalising -this his is only reason for trying to edit I think. He isn't a vandal but I admit he can appear threatening if faced with a lot of difficulty which is understandable but probably not received by people very well. I would recommend reducing the block to 24 hours but as I said the decision it yours, and I dont want to see any more ill feeling over this. All the best ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ouch that was a difficult one. I think any recent actions were only in good faith. Thanks anyway ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that before reverting, there is a major need in discussing everything, because those who don't discuss things, are the main reasons to edit wars.
I anyway thank you for your message, I will take your advices into account and try to display them gradually. I won't make the same mistake again in any case :) So like my Russian friend says: "Spasibo" (I know only these two words. Nice no?) Shahid • Talk2me 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. I restored [26] the COI tag in the Petr Vaníček article after Geoeg removed it again [27]. I saw the note you left on his talk page regarding this matter, so I thought I'd let you know. Best, -- Bfigura ( talk) 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I know that you unblocked Shshshsh couple of days back by assuming good faith after he apologized. Much as I didnt appreciate the unblock, especially considering that he had not served any time at all(remember he used his sister's comp to evade the initial block), I didnt want to question your unblock or pursue it as I also wanted to AGF. But it seems to me that it was a big mistake to unblock him without giving him enough time to calm down. He has once again violated 3rr on that article. This time 4 reverts in 4 hours and he's battling multiple editors. Worse, he seems to be in no mood for reason and just keeps reverting willy nilly and bringing back fancruft and commentary from his sources, non-RS as they already are. Several editors are already tired of his warring and are throwing their hands up in despair.
I request your urgent action on this and much as I understand that blocks arent meant to be punitive, CS tells me that sometimes people need a lot of time to calm down. This mess already seems to be taking toll and Wikipedia's most prolific editor, Blofeld has called it quits. Please step in before it gets worse. Thanks and here are the diffs ... definite 3rr vio but please dont ask me for "version reverted to"... it is a total mess out there and I can assure you that all of it is Shshshsh's making.
Sarvagnya 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
spartaz, on your user page you said that editors should raise any comments/concerns about your actions to you and you promised to correct them.i know it's been a while on that but it still stings to see that you have blocked matt57 for one month for a REALLY minor comment he made.i was looking at the talk page of one of the most respected editors in wikipedia-in my honest opinion-namely Proabivouac,and i saw a sign saying free matt57,when i checked out what happened i was deeply appalled to see how someone like you became an editor on wikipedia.everyone here posts knowledge for the good of others and therefore people of this kind should be respected for their noble intentions.but in your case,you truly ought to be ashamed of yourself for what you've done.that is,if you still have a shred of dignity left in you... Grandia01 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz... Good friend100 suggested I ask you a question. I've been on WP for 16 months but I significantly picked up my editing about 3 months ago. The solar energy page is my home base but I've also created a page myself and have been wandering further from home lately.
For the last several months my edits have been followed by an Anon. I've never had a problem with anyone on WP but this Anon opened up with a shot over the bow and there's been some back and forth. I've asked for the guy to leave me alone etc. This Anon has a firm grasp on the rules of WP but I don't believe he/she is using them in good faith. All I have is a firm grasp on the topic so I've worked on the material.
Despite the drag this IP has caused for me I've continued editing the solar energy page and with a good deal of professional editing got the page up to GA status recently. This is where Good friend100 came into the picture and suggested I talk to you. I see my shadow has followed me to other pages now and my attempts to continue improving the solar energy page continue to move sideways at times because of this IP. I made a friend through the editing of the solar energy page. In private correspondence he had this to say...
"I don't know how you even stand the BS that goes along with publishing an article on Wiki. So far, nobody has messed with my little Westinghouse blurbs, but if folks started with all that bickering nonsense, I'd just abandon the things."
The rule of WP is to Assume good faith and I think I've done that. From my perspective this IP editor has used up his nine lives many times over. What should I do? Mrshaba 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me some diff of the anon's harrassment? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's bedtime for me in California. I will put together something tomorrow. Mrshaba 07:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
My issue with this Anon is his longterm pattern of opposition to quality and progress on the solar energy page. Essentially, I do not believe he is acting in good faith. Here is a recent example regarding pictures on the page. While more obscure this opening paragraph proposal based editing scheme is another example of holding up the page. [38] I figured something was wrong with the process but I didn't know better at the time. One editor noted that proposal based editing is unwiki, slow, wearying, and unfriendly to visitors. I find this Anon has some of these same qualities. I could understand if these examples are not enough but it will take some time for me to put together a thorough case. Should I bother? Mrshaba 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. May I suggest that when reporting people who are tendentious rather than simply vandals, you use {{ userlinks}} instead of {{ vandal}}, they do the same thing. I think we need to be clear on what vandalism is and is not. Thanks, Guy ( Help!) 08:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't seem to tell the difference. I just reverted an anon's edit (where he deleted entire sections of text). It looked like vandalism to me, since the anon just removed a large amount of information. However, an administrator told me it was content dispute and said he would full protect Goguryeo. Could you clarify for me? thank you. Good friend100 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok then for example, if somebody removes all the information in Goguryeo that is relevant to Korea (there is a political dispute between china and korea on goguryeo), this is vandalism right? Because its bias and the text is not disputed in anyway. Good friend100 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any particular suggestions? TJ Spyke 02:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Good morning Spartaz,
I'd like to know why you deleted my article "Online Operating System" (again). Didn't you read my notes in the talk section of the page? I try to put it in other words: I think that wikipedia is a good place to show what a webtop is and which ones are available. If you don't think so please let me know. What could I have done better so that my article was not deleted?
Kind regards, The solipsist 09:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I closed the DRV early as the outcome was fore-ordained and further discussion would have been pointless. Can I suggest that you don't close any contentious AFDs until after/if you become an admin? Its also never cool to close any discussion in which you have voiced an opinion. The effect is that we have to throw away the first discussion and start again. This is a needless waste of time and effort on the part of other users that could have been avoided. Plus I could have done without the fiddly job of relisting this lot. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
Thanks, I suppose that is the best way to judge AFD consensus etc. and since your an admin, it's clearly worked. It's alright about the message, we're all like that at some time. Regards, Rudget zŋ 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
You closed Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_11#Universal_Savings_Bank_and_Upfront_Rewards_.28closed.29, an allegation of an out of process speedy. Addressing the backed allegation that an out of process speedy occurred was not a visible component in the decision-making process. So you closed the review with out addressing the main issue. I wasn't even given the opportunity to view the evidence being used against me; it remains secret evidence. Please address the main issue, thanks. -- Elvey 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey... is there anything worthwhile in the deletion history of Digger (band)? Thanks Chubbles 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw you blocked User:Stunna990 as a sock. I saw this because in patrolling new accounts, I noticed User:James Bondo69 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was making the same edit to articles deleting a category ( Category:Gator Olympians) created by User:Stunna990. Then I noticed MM990MM ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was adding the same content to articles about their Florida alumni status. I am not sure what is going on here, but could MM990MM be Stunna990? And could James Bondo69 be some sock rival of his? Just a head's up - not sure if anything can be done about it.... Regards.-- 12 Noon 05:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) They are WOversight socks. If they have not already been dealt with I'll deal now. Thanks for the heads up. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Can you please participate in this discussion and make the policy clear once for all? There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding usage of fair use images in biographical articles. Gnanapiti ( talk) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
He has no edits outside of his unblock requests, so his rename request will be denied as being redundant because he can just as easily abandon the McDonalds account and start the new one. Odd unblock, especially after two denials, if I may say so. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Got another one for ya... Exploding White Mice. Thanks! Chubbles ( talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you warn the users who are editwarring at this article? Here is the edit history [39]. Namely Jusenkyoguide and Mitver, who are both controlling their edit war so they cannot be reported. I asked them to stop, but Jusenkyoguide told me I could report him if I wanted [40]. Good friend100 ( talk) 14:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have seen no one defend the inclusion of the sentence I keep trying to remove from the cradle of liberty page; the cite given by evrik has nothing to support the statements that the city reversed its decision or anything about the mayoral race. I find it very odd that a user who uses partisan anchor tags like "weasels" and "slipperyweasels" in an article, and who reverts without comment my removals which ARE commented, is apparently sided with by the editors. As for charges of "sockpuppetry", I just don't always remember to log in, but my IP address is always the same. Brian Westley ( talk) 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments regarding my overly hasty SNOW closures of AfDs. I guess sometimes I get a little too excited and just go around closing way too fast... I do try to pace myself, but I guess I still need work! Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I forgot this AFD - I closed the first AFD as no consensus on August 23 and removed the tag; there was a second AFD on September 12 - I'm not sure what became of that because no one closed it or removed the tag, and I didn't encounter it (therefore I couldn't have forgotten about it ;P). -- Core desat 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give some advice on how to handle an editor that wholescale reverts edits. Admittedly, I didn't handle the situation in the best fashion, but it is very frustrating to spend several hours editting in multiply cited text, only to have them reverted b/c one editor has not "approved" all of the edits yet. This is the second time in one week that Hoshidoshi has claimed ownership of the article.
I understand why the protection was placed (there was an edit war after all.) However, the page protection only reinforces this behavior of page ownership for Hoshi. He now has NO incentive to collaborate on the article, as it is frozen in the version that he has been reverting to, with blatant disregard for 3RR.
I am not the only user that has run into Hoshi's frustrating behavior before. Is there any recourse in this situation?
Djma12 ( talk) 14:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The original DRV was of a speedy deletion. The 24 November DRV is of my AFD close. There is a difference. In addition, the user's concern is that we are deleting this out of bias. Undoing your DRV close and letting it run for a full five days might help the user be less upset and avoid drama. (It is my AFD close that is under review, and I have no objection to letting it run, or I wouldn't be posting this.) GRBerry 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Something in the block log made me pause a while. Its done now.
Thanks for being on the ball though! :)
Best,
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Silver Screen Classics. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 99.236.63.51 ( talk) 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you recently deleted that article, and there was a AfD debate on it and there were more users in favour to keep the article but you still deleted it anyway. That's not how Wikipedia works, you cannot come in and override the debate just because you want the page deleted, when clearly the vote was to keep. 99.236.63.51 ( talk) 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
In your recent decision to close the Ericsson R290 deletion discussion with a delete decision, you use the phrase "if there are no sources". The article did in fact have one secondary source (as well as one primary one). Therefore, given that the rest of the discussion rests on a debate over notability, your reason (with respect) seems to have missed the point. Did you attempt to verify the sources in the article?
Thanks for your time, – Kieran T ( talk) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hullo, Spartaz. I wanted to let you know that a user with whom I think you are familiar is again the topic of discussion at ANI. The user is participating in a disruptive edit war across a number of Korean/Japanese related articles. Shouldn't this disruption be considered a breech of the spirit of the agreement that this user has with you and several administrators? This continuous disruption of Korean-related articles has long since frightened away editors who have the expertise to help make Korean-related articles GA or feature articles. I wonder why we have to put up with this editor and his equally disruptive counterparts (e.g. this one)? They have effectively hijacked a part of Wikipedia and will never cease in their pointless ethnic-based edit-warring. I am appealing to you, Spartaz. I think you know that this is a chronic and long-term problem with the Korea-related content. Something needs to be done to clear out this lot of disruptors. BTW Badagnani got reported too but this editor is a valued contributor. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia ( talk) 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You closed the AFD here as delete despite an overwhelming majority (19-5 by my count) of keep votes. I understand that it's a discussion rather than a vote, but I just don't see what reasons there are for deletion and the consensus was overwhelmingly to keep. I think including this under WP:GUIDE requires a loose interpretation of what a guide is, and otherwise I don't see any argument for deletion that holds up to any policy. The main arguments I see are WP:USELESS, WP:GUIDE (which doesn't make any sense to me), and that the article is cumbersome (which isn't a reason for deletion, rather it is an argument for cleanup). Furthermore, none of the delete voters really seemed to make any attempt to discuss their reasoning at all. I'm curious if you could explain why you closed it the way you did, and I'm taking this to you first as is recommended in Wikipedia:Deletion review. Oren0 ( talk) 08:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guitar controller compatibility. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 206.169.113.251 ( talk) 02:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Spartaz,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. |
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wrike. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Abdullais4u ( talk) 11:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Aladin Zane is clearly (yet another) sock of Rogue Gremlin. Same stuff: Burt Reynolds, Playboy, Waycross Georgia. this user should be permanently banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aladdin_Zane
Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sort out the internal links for List of Warcraft humanoid races once the database has updated the change to the template Done Spartaz Humbug! 23:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As an outside admin who is simply following what Thatcher131 is saying, you should maybe read this. The case of Tajik was reported to User:Jimbo Wales and many users, including admin User:Alex Bakharev and former opponents of Tajik pleadged to unblock Tajik or at least give him a chance to express himself in an ArbCom. While Thatcher131 persists that I am Tajik, Tajik's IP and writing style on the Jimbo Wales discussion page show that I am not.
All the mess started when Thatcher131 blindly blocked Tajik with a wrong accusation (i.e. that Tajik was the same person as User:Tajik-Professor). Thatcher131 did not have any evidence for that and he still does not have any evidence. Tajik was practically muzzled in between of an ArbCom and when Tajik wrote something as an IP, all admins turned against him and accused him of evading the ArbCom. Meanwhile, countless others have been accused of being sockpuppets and checkuser confirmed that none of them was Tajik [43]. A checkuser file by admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has also confirmed that Tajik had no sockpuppets. All other checkuser requests that could have proved Tajik's innocence were systematically blocked by Thatcher131 and User:Dmcdevit.
Everyone is telling Tajik to contact the ArbCom, but so far, the ArbCom has ignored all requests. They simply wanted Tajik banned (for some reason), and they do not want to re-investigate the case.
Thatcher131 is an extremely untrustworthy admin whose un-neutral position and biased decisions in favor of User:E104421 are known. In both cases, Tajik and Beh-nam, he banned the opponents of E104421, although E104421 is himself an extremely disruptive POV-pusher with a long block-log. You can ask admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise about him.
And while many disruptive users of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 will be back after a 1 year ban (despite multiple sockpuppets and meatpuppets), Thatcher131 and "his friends" have banned Tajik indef. Not even giving him the chance to speak.
Before you make any further decisions, PLEASE observe Tajik's and Beh-nam's case independently. Thank you very much.
BTW: User:E104421 is partially a meatpuppet of User:Moorudd, also known as de:Benutzer:Westthrakientürke in the German Wikipedia (with a very long block-log). He is being observed by some admins, including User:Elian who is an admin in the German Wikipedia. Both accounts are at least related to that of de:Benutzer:Postmann Michael, a user who has been banned because Pan-Turkist POV and German Neo-Nazi propaganda.
Hi, back again...my work is never done. Can I see See You Next Tuesday (band)? Chubbles ( talk) 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Done Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sort out the links on Locations in Cyrodiil when I have a mo. & Cyrodiil+ Plus Oblivion (dimension)
This wasn't proper, it was a referenced article, it was notable, I can prove it was notable. It is the setting for a multi-million copy selling game. Therefore it is known familiar to millions. There were 6 for keep and 6 for delete and I sincerely believe it didn't fail WP:FICTION. The result should have been no-consensus at the very least. This discussion should be re-opened, deletion is the last option not the first and as the rules say, Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy , it isn't a definitive set of policy. TostitosAreGross ( talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
On my previous RFA (back in August), some of the oppose editors suggested to renominate in a few months, which I have (now), yet there are still opposes. If it goes over 10 opposes, you can snowball it. Is it me, or will the legal threat always go against me in RFA's? BTW, the reason for the resolved tags at WP:ANI is actually intended to ease the board, see this comment about a possible adjustment to the archiving system designed to ease the board. As a matter of fact, I've been doing that for about 20 edits. Dav nel 03 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Spartaz, thanks so much for your confidence and support!
--
A. B.
(talk)
19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Spartaz,
Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. |
Hey, can I see Weapon of Choice (band)? Thanks! Chubbles ( talk) 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A new user? I've been here for a few months. I am also not too stupid. I do have a bunch of questions that I'm too scared to ask! Like about templates. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Hmm, I'm the last person to ask about templates - I can barely manage simple mark-up. Spartaz Humbug! 23:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Based on edit pattern, it appears as though Rogue Gremlin has now created his third sock with DevilN dSkyz JerryGraf 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you had administered a 3RR violation over at Battlezone (on Sept. 26th) and had decided not to sprotect it at the time. The issue is still happening (in fact he kept it never stopped), and the user in question is using multiple anonymous to do the same edits over and over. He's just spacing them out more. Is there any way I can get an sprotect on the page? -- Marty Goldberg 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a Wikiquote admin looking into potential problems with our users. I see that you declined an unblock request on this IP address (after a username operating from this IP performed some WoW-style vandalism), saying "THis appears to be a fixed ip…". Could you tell me how you deduced this? RoadRunner (the IP range's registered operator) provides broadband connections to many residential communities, so while the assigned IP addresses may not change very often, many are probably officially dynamic. I ask because, if this address is indeed at least semi-permanent, we would definitely want to watch any users associated with it, but I also wouldn't want to unreasonably worry about bad-faith editing if it was truly dynamic. Thank you for your help. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. I'm very sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid that there may be trouble over at Cydonia Mensae again. The anon block there recently expired and our anon friend 193.203.82.194 has just come right back and altered the article to a POV and inaccurate state. I've not reverted this change yet to avoid triggering yet another edit war, but I have posted a request for him/her to clarify what they think is wrong with the article. I'll wait a day or two to see if that makes progress at all, but if it doesn't I suspect an edit war may result. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know what's up. Cheers, -- Plumbago 12:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Spartaz. Marty Nicolaus, the CEO of LifeRing, happens to be a copyright lawyer as his day job, and contends that there is no copyright violation if they give their permission for the information to be used. I believe that this means that they have to post permission somewhere on Wikipedia. I'm working with him to make sure that the information that gets posted maintains NPOV. Robert Rapplean 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz. I noticed you closed this AfD, saying the result was Delete and Salt. However, you did not say on what grounds this result was based. What were they? Thank you. Nick Graves 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I have another question. Since you're the closing admin for the deleted article, I wanted to check with you before going ahead with Lists of Christians. It would not contain a general list of individuals (which was the target of the criticism in the last two AfDs), but would rather be a navigational aid for existing lists of limited scope in the pattern of Lists of people. This type of list has precedent in such articles as Lists of Jews and Lists of Muslims, both of which have been deemed acceptable by community consensus. Such a list of lists would inevitably be similar in some respects to the deleted list, but would be different in a way that avoids what many editors have deemed to be problematic in the recent AfDs. Please let me know what you think. Nick Graves 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, on second thought I removed it straight away as they seemed to have stopped, but one of them went to RPP [1]. Phgao 08:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello u blocked me for 24 hours for breaking 3RR rule. I agree i needed this punishment but i think u should also look the circumstances and reason behind it. KNM and others were deliberately ignoring the sources and information added and reverting. This is not content dispute but deliberate breaking of rules under pretext of ignornce. Please see the message i pasted in 3rr section and do needful.
( Stateofart 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
This is case of hypocricy of KNM and his friends of removing sourced information and reverting without even looking at sources. Despite
request at his talk page and constant appeals thorugh edit summaries and presenting a
SOURCE which he choosed to ignore and delete
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5] sourced information along with others whom he hired for saving himself from 3RR
[6],
[7]
Earlier too despite many explainations and repeated requests by me to see source [8], [9], [10], [11]
and his friends [15], [16], [17], [18]
chose not to click and read the source and read what they call as 'POV' was endorsed by national newspaper,Times Of India. Note that this source is here from past few weeks and still KNM/others are ignoring and reverting deliberately. Also note that kannada script in Rahul Dravid is unwarrented since he is not a kannadiga. That means Aishwarya Rai should also have Marathi script. Above all KNM and others guard the pages together and leave no option for an individual to break some wikipedia rules. KNM and others should be punished for their deliberate ignoring of sources and starting a edit war. ( Stateofart 07:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
Sorry to bother you, but I happened to notice the report here. Since you were the original blocking administrator, it might be of interest/relevant to you. — LactoseTI T 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You said that Mostargue was a sock and has been blocked ( User_talk:Mostargue#Blocked). Where can I find the evidence that you have collected against the user? Also, if I violate 3rr, but am "constructively discussing changes on the talk page", then I will be also be warned and not blocked? Bless sins 19:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
So based on only two edits (the "third" one [19], and the "fourth" one [20]) you conclude that the user is a sockpuppet of Kirbytime. Did you compile any extensive evidence? Was there a checkuser that established a connection between the two? Did you even give the user any chance to defend him/herself before blocking him/her?
And after all that you give the user an indefinite block (one of the harshest punishments you can give). Pardon me, but maybe you should have taken extra steps before blocking the user.
Regarding 3rr. I'm not questioning your decision, nor am I asking you to revoke it. What is done, has been done and can't be changed. But I want a clarification for the future. Many users (myself included) have been blocked for 3rr while discussing changes. Why is it that whether a user is blocked, who has violated 3rr, depends on whether an admin think he/she is an "established good faith editor"? And who gets to decide whether an editor is "good faith" or not? Bless sins 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a discussion of Mostargue here. regarding the 3rr, I guess I will post something on WP:3rr's talk page. Bless sins 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. I came through an ANI report where i got to know that this user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user Kirbytime. Could you please explain to me the circumstances under which you took this decision? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you use the caption "Humbug" for your talk page link. With all due respect, but I don't think this is funny, but more liking ridiculing editors who want to discuss something with you. Pls consider using another title that isn't a borderline case of WP:Civil. Best regards Gray62 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have answered your question here: WP:3RRN#User:Str1977_reported_by_User:Bless_sins_.28Result:_.29
I hope you were not offended by me. I consider you an honest judge. Its just that we differ as to the formalities required to arrive at such opinions. This is a minor difference, and I hope you will understand. Bless sins 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind if I unblock Matt57 a bit early in recognition of the fact that he hasn't used any sock puppets or caused any huge fuss? - Jehochman Talk 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my intent. How can I make Peace. I do wish to help stop disruptions at Wikipedia. Can you advise accordingly? Please? Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You forgot about this. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You in the last case you decided that 3rr had been violated by mistake and didn't deserve a block. While that's fine, I'd like to point out that when I was blocked for 3rr, I had also breached 3rr by mistake. Anyways, I have asked this question here. Bless sins 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dale Hample. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/ c 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't have blocked the user as the user has made no edits to that template since his/her last warning, several hours ago. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, In view of the editing history of Honour of Richmond, I wondered if Regiment ( talk · contribs) could be a reincarnation of Lord Loxley ( talk · contribs). However, that talk page was deleted only a few days ago by ST47 ( talk · contribs). I think I had a look at Loxley's talk page just before the deletion, and if I remember correctly this was a banned user. I asked ST47 if the deletion was done at Regiment's request, but (s)he has not answered me yet. / Pieter Kuiper 07:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sources have been provided that verify his WP:MUSIC notability claims. Please reconsider your opinion. link T Rex | talk 00:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Any chance I could beggar you to see 90 Day Men? Thanks! Chubbles 04:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Spartaz, check out my reply to your report closure regarding the above user. Cheers, Anthøny 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you blocked 161.253.37.233 ( talk · contribs) as a sock of WOverstreet, I thought I'd mention that he appears to be back. He may also have a new account- Stunna990 ( talk · contribs). Same obsessive pattern of University of Florida-related editing. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations and welcome to the large and growing club of administrators who have blocked Geoeg for a three revert rule violation. His logs tells a story, and the account was only created on 2 October. He seems to me to be a single purpose account whose sole interest is to push some fringe theories. I am no expert in these fields but judging by the degree to which he has become involved in controversy and refuses to engage in meaningful discussion, I would doubt whether he can continue editing in this manner for long. (I think Dicklyon is not blameless but he seems to be a good faith user driven to the end of his teather by Geoeg's point of view pushing.)
What I'm wondering is whether it is better to take this problem to WP:AN/I for others to give their input, or just to give him a final warning to 'co-operate or get out'. Sam Blacketer 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have expanded the article and added references, see User:Biscuittin/DLM AG. If you approve, please move it back to DLM AG. Thanks for your help. Biscuittin 11:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Biscuittin 09:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any sources of this kind at present so I will leave DLM AG as a user page for now. Biscuittin 16:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I think I made a fair call regarding this AfD. As a rule, I don't revisit AfDs at WP:DRV. The default rule is keep an article if there is no consensus. Looking at it again, I probably should have written, keep without consensus or the like. I could have also not gotten involved as the closing admin, and rescued it myself. I can look for sources, if you wish. I'm no expert on the topic, although I constucted a bovine tongue (pun intended) at WorldCon in 2001. You may also go to DRV or grade me poorly when I come up for admin review in four months. Bearian 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems there is some disagreement about the idea of community banning him, most notably from Penwhale [23]. I'd think the way to go from here is Arbitration, what say you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Legend of the Green Dragon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Putting this here due to your initial comment in the deletion review which mentioned that it hadn't been talked over with you first. Neither Eric nor I (the other co-author of LoTGD) are heavy wikipedia users, so weren't aware that we should bring the request to you personally first. From my perspective, while LoTGD started out as an inspiration from LORD, it has long since grown into it's own unique and well-loved piece of software. On that reason alone, I think it is worthy of it's own page rather than a mere footnote or having it's information merged into LORD which is a completely different system. None of our code was actually derived from the LORD code, just the 'flavor' of the game. I would also request that the original page be restored since I believe it has merit in it's own right as an individual game and is, in no way at this state far from it's beginnings, a clone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.4.4 ( talk) 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
ok im off that uncalled for block in which I didn't do anything wrong.
So can you clarify for me what my restrictions are? Am I allowed to hit the undo button if somebody deletes information off an article (for example the diffs Komdori used in his report)? Or is that a violation of 1RR? What are the clear restrictions as to what I can do? I don't want Komdori run to ANI and start using an undo made by me as an excuse to get me hammered (like he tried to do with his report).
Oh, and how long does the 1RR rule apply? Good friend100 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi I'm just asking for the unblocking of User:Shshshsh. I can see he flared up a little in response to the comments at the FA article for Preity Zinta but given some of the comments it is easy to see why. However I do think he should have received a warning first rather than a straight blocking on which I'm sure he would havebacked off . It seems to me he has calmed down and that 24 hours is too long for a user who has done a lot of good for Indian film on wikiepdia. Could you unblock him ? I'm sure he wouldn't react again so soon . 12:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that this vote appears invalid by Sarvagnya on
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zintaand is done out of spite within an hour following a confronation on the article -please see
Shahrukh Khan history. It looks very suspicious to me that the above user came across this page after checking the contributions of Shahid following the edit war on that page and visisted the page specifically to give the "strongest oppose possible" -I find this utterly unacceptable that somebody would delibrately not give a genuine review of an article and attempt to jeopardise it because of a previous confrontation elsewhere.
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦
"Talk"?
12:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; yes, I eventually tracked it all down and realized it was a separate article/incident. Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Shshshsh has apparently evaded the 24 hour block you had imposed. He has made a series of edits as an anon user. Please see this his own message in his talk page. Request your action on this. Thanks, - KNM Talk 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Look I'm not going to try to fight anybody's cause but I have to say that you have blown this situation out of proportion and not helped things. Now I can see your justification for your course of actions but I feel you have been a little heavy handed here against somebody who is not a vandal. What you don't see is the indirect effects of your actions and how much content and work this user has put into other articles where wikipedia needs as many contributors as possible. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
OK Spartaz I've spoken to him see User talk:Shshshsh - I can see your course of action as you said. I think he has given an adequate apology and I think he was genuinely trying to help the article rather than vandalising -this his is only reason for trying to edit I think. He isn't a vandal but I admit he can appear threatening if faced with a lot of difficulty which is understandable but probably not received by people very well. I would recommend reducing the block to 24 hours but as I said the decision it yours, and I dont want to see any more ill feeling over this. All the best ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ouch that was a difficult one. I think any recent actions were only in good faith. Thanks anyway ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that before reverting, there is a major need in discussing everything, because those who don't discuss things, are the main reasons to edit wars.
I anyway thank you for your message, I will take your advices into account and try to display them gradually. I won't make the same mistake again in any case :) So like my Russian friend says: "Spasibo" (I know only these two words. Nice no?) Shahid • Talk2me 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. I restored [26] the COI tag in the Petr Vaníček article after Geoeg removed it again [27]. I saw the note you left on his talk page regarding this matter, so I thought I'd let you know. Best, -- Bfigura ( talk) 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I know that you unblocked Shshshsh couple of days back by assuming good faith after he apologized. Much as I didnt appreciate the unblock, especially considering that he had not served any time at all(remember he used his sister's comp to evade the initial block), I didnt want to question your unblock or pursue it as I also wanted to AGF. But it seems to me that it was a big mistake to unblock him without giving him enough time to calm down. He has once again violated 3rr on that article. This time 4 reverts in 4 hours and he's battling multiple editors. Worse, he seems to be in no mood for reason and just keeps reverting willy nilly and bringing back fancruft and commentary from his sources, non-RS as they already are. Several editors are already tired of his warring and are throwing their hands up in despair.
I request your urgent action on this and much as I understand that blocks arent meant to be punitive, CS tells me that sometimes people need a lot of time to calm down. This mess already seems to be taking toll and Wikipedia's most prolific editor, Blofeld has called it quits. Please step in before it gets worse. Thanks and here are the diffs ... definite 3rr vio but please dont ask me for "version reverted to"... it is a total mess out there and I can assure you that all of it is Shshshsh's making.
Sarvagnya 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
spartaz, on your user page you said that editors should raise any comments/concerns about your actions to you and you promised to correct them.i know it's been a while on that but it still stings to see that you have blocked matt57 for one month for a REALLY minor comment he made.i was looking at the talk page of one of the most respected editors in wikipedia-in my honest opinion-namely Proabivouac,and i saw a sign saying free matt57,when i checked out what happened i was deeply appalled to see how someone like you became an editor on wikipedia.everyone here posts knowledge for the good of others and therefore people of this kind should be respected for their noble intentions.but in your case,you truly ought to be ashamed of yourself for what you've done.that is,if you still have a shred of dignity left in you... Grandia01 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz... Good friend100 suggested I ask you a question. I've been on WP for 16 months but I significantly picked up my editing about 3 months ago. The solar energy page is my home base but I've also created a page myself and have been wandering further from home lately.
For the last several months my edits have been followed by an Anon. I've never had a problem with anyone on WP but this Anon opened up with a shot over the bow and there's been some back and forth. I've asked for the guy to leave me alone etc. This Anon has a firm grasp on the rules of WP but I don't believe he/she is using them in good faith. All I have is a firm grasp on the topic so I've worked on the material.
Despite the drag this IP has caused for me I've continued editing the solar energy page and with a good deal of professional editing got the page up to GA status recently. This is where Good friend100 came into the picture and suggested I talk to you. I see my shadow has followed me to other pages now and my attempts to continue improving the solar energy page continue to move sideways at times because of this IP. I made a friend through the editing of the solar energy page. In private correspondence he had this to say...
"I don't know how you even stand the BS that goes along with publishing an article on Wiki. So far, nobody has messed with my little Westinghouse blurbs, but if folks started with all that bickering nonsense, I'd just abandon the things."
The rule of WP is to Assume good faith and I think I've done that. From my perspective this IP editor has used up his nine lives many times over. What should I do? Mrshaba 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me some diff of the anon's harrassment? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's bedtime for me in California. I will put together something tomorrow. Mrshaba 07:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
My issue with this Anon is his longterm pattern of opposition to quality and progress on the solar energy page. Essentially, I do not believe he is acting in good faith. Here is a recent example regarding pictures on the page. While more obscure this opening paragraph proposal based editing scheme is another example of holding up the page. [38] I figured something was wrong with the process but I didn't know better at the time. One editor noted that proposal based editing is unwiki, slow, wearying, and unfriendly to visitors. I find this Anon has some of these same qualities. I could understand if these examples are not enough but it will take some time for me to put together a thorough case. Should I bother? Mrshaba 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. May I suggest that when reporting people who are tendentious rather than simply vandals, you use {{ userlinks}} instead of {{ vandal}}, they do the same thing. I think we need to be clear on what vandalism is and is not. Thanks, Guy ( Help!) 08:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't seem to tell the difference. I just reverted an anon's edit (where he deleted entire sections of text). It looked like vandalism to me, since the anon just removed a large amount of information. However, an administrator told me it was content dispute and said he would full protect Goguryeo. Could you clarify for me? thank you. Good friend100 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok then for example, if somebody removes all the information in Goguryeo that is relevant to Korea (there is a political dispute between china and korea on goguryeo), this is vandalism right? Because its bias and the text is not disputed in anyway. Good friend100 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any particular suggestions? TJ Spyke 02:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Good morning Spartaz,
I'd like to know why you deleted my article "Online Operating System" (again). Didn't you read my notes in the talk section of the page? I try to put it in other words: I think that wikipedia is a good place to show what a webtop is and which ones are available. If you don't think so please let me know. What could I have done better so that my article was not deleted?
Kind regards, The solipsist 09:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I closed the DRV early as the outcome was fore-ordained and further discussion would have been pointless. Can I suggest that you don't close any contentious AFDs until after/if you become an admin? Its also never cool to close any discussion in which you have voiced an opinion. The effect is that we have to throw away the first discussion and start again. This is a needless waste of time and effort on the part of other users that could have been avoided. Plus I could have done without the fiddly job of relisting this lot. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
Thanks, I suppose that is the best way to judge AFD consensus etc. and since your an admin, it's clearly worked. It's alright about the message, we're all like that at some time. Regards, Rudget zŋ 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
You closed Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_11#Universal_Savings_Bank_and_Upfront_Rewards_.28closed.29, an allegation of an out of process speedy. Addressing the backed allegation that an out of process speedy occurred was not a visible component in the decision-making process. So you closed the review with out addressing the main issue. I wasn't even given the opportunity to view the evidence being used against me; it remains secret evidence. Please address the main issue, thanks. -- Elvey 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey... is there anything worthwhile in the deletion history of Digger (band)? Thanks Chubbles 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw you blocked User:Stunna990 as a sock. I saw this because in patrolling new accounts, I noticed User:James Bondo69 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was making the same edit to articles deleting a category ( Category:Gator Olympians) created by User:Stunna990. Then I noticed MM990MM ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was adding the same content to articles about their Florida alumni status. I am not sure what is going on here, but could MM990MM be Stunna990? And could James Bondo69 be some sock rival of his? Just a head's up - not sure if anything can be done about it.... Regards.-- 12 Noon 05:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) They are WOversight socks. If they have not already been dealt with I'll deal now. Thanks for the heads up. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Can you please participate in this discussion and make the policy clear once for all? There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding usage of fair use images in biographical articles. Gnanapiti ( talk) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
He has no edits outside of his unblock requests, so his rename request will be denied as being redundant because he can just as easily abandon the McDonalds account and start the new one. Odd unblock, especially after two denials, if I may say so. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Got another one for ya... Exploding White Mice. Thanks! Chubbles ( talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you warn the users who are editwarring at this article? Here is the edit history [39]. Namely Jusenkyoguide and Mitver, who are both controlling their edit war so they cannot be reported. I asked them to stop, but Jusenkyoguide told me I could report him if I wanted [40]. Good friend100 ( talk) 14:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have seen no one defend the inclusion of the sentence I keep trying to remove from the cradle of liberty page; the cite given by evrik has nothing to support the statements that the city reversed its decision or anything about the mayoral race. I find it very odd that a user who uses partisan anchor tags like "weasels" and "slipperyweasels" in an article, and who reverts without comment my removals which ARE commented, is apparently sided with by the editors. As for charges of "sockpuppetry", I just don't always remember to log in, but my IP address is always the same. Brian Westley ( talk) 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments regarding my overly hasty SNOW closures of AfDs. I guess sometimes I get a little too excited and just go around closing way too fast... I do try to pace myself, but I guess I still need work! Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I forgot this AFD - I closed the first AFD as no consensus on August 23 and removed the tag; there was a second AFD on September 12 - I'm not sure what became of that because no one closed it or removed the tag, and I didn't encounter it (therefore I couldn't have forgotten about it ;P). -- Core desat 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give some advice on how to handle an editor that wholescale reverts edits. Admittedly, I didn't handle the situation in the best fashion, but it is very frustrating to spend several hours editting in multiply cited text, only to have them reverted b/c one editor has not "approved" all of the edits yet. This is the second time in one week that Hoshidoshi has claimed ownership of the article.
I understand why the protection was placed (there was an edit war after all.) However, the page protection only reinforces this behavior of page ownership for Hoshi. He now has NO incentive to collaborate on the article, as it is frozen in the version that he has been reverting to, with blatant disregard for 3RR.
I am not the only user that has run into Hoshi's frustrating behavior before. Is there any recourse in this situation?
Djma12 ( talk) 14:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The original DRV was of a speedy deletion. The 24 November DRV is of my AFD close. There is a difference. In addition, the user's concern is that we are deleting this out of bias. Undoing your DRV close and letting it run for a full five days might help the user be less upset and avoid drama. (It is my AFD close that is under review, and I have no objection to letting it run, or I wouldn't be posting this.) GRBerry 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Something in the block log made me pause a while. Its done now.
Thanks for being on the ball though! :)
Best,
FT2 (
Talk |
email)
15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Silver Screen Classics. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 99.236.63.51 ( talk) 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you recently deleted that article, and there was a AfD debate on it and there were more users in favour to keep the article but you still deleted it anyway. That's not how Wikipedia works, you cannot come in and override the debate just because you want the page deleted, when clearly the vote was to keep. 99.236.63.51 ( talk) 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
In your recent decision to close the Ericsson R290 deletion discussion with a delete decision, you use the phrase "if there are no sources". The article did in fact have one secondary source (as well as one primary one). Therefore, given that the rest of the discussion rests on a debate over notability, your reason (with respect) seems to have missed the point. Did you attempt to verify the sources in the article?
Thanks for your time, – Kieran T ( talk) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hullo, Spartaz. I wanted to let you know that a user with whom I think you are familiar is again the topic of discussion at ANI. The user is participating in a disruptive edit war across a number of Korean/Japanese related articles. Shouldn't this disruption be considered a breech of the spirit of the agreement that this user has with you and several administrators? This continuous disruption of Korean-related articles has long since frightened away editors who have the expertise to help make Korean-related articles GA or feature articles. I wonder why we have to put up with this editor and his equally disruptive counterparts (e.g. this one)? They have effectively hijacked a part of Wikipedia and will never cease in their pointless ethnic-based edit-warring. I am appealing to you, Spartaz. I think you know that this is a chronic and long-term problem with the Korea-related content. Something needs to be done to clear out this lot of disruptors. BTW Badagnani got reported too but this editor is a valued contributor. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia ( talk) 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You closed the AFD here as delete despite an overwhelming majority (19-5 by my count) of keep votes. I understand that it's a discussion rather than a vote, but I just don't see what reasons there are for deletion and the consensus was overwhelmingly to keep. I think including this under WP:GUIDE requires a loose interpretation of what a guide is, and otherwise I don't see any argument for deletion that holds up to any policy. The main arguments I see are WP:USELESS, WP:GUIDE (which doesn't make any sense to me), and that the article is cumbersome (which isn't a reason for deletion, rather it is an argument for cleanup). Furthermore, none of the delete voters really seemed to make any attempt to discuss their reasoning at all. I'm curious if you could explain why you closed it the way you did, and I'm taking this to you first as is recommended in Wikipedia:Deletion review. Oren0 ( talk) 08:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guitar controller compatibility. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 206.169.113.251 ( talk) 02:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Spartaz,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. |
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wrike. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Abdullais4u ( talk) 11:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Aladin Zane is clearly (yet another) sock of Rogue Gremlin. Same stuff: Burt Reynolds, Playboy, Waycross Georgia. this user should be permanently banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aladdin_Zane
Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sort out the internal links for List of Warcraft humanoid races once the database has updated the change to the template Done Spartaz Humbug! 23:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As an outside admin who is simply following what Thatcher131 is saying, you should maybe read this. The case of Tajik was reported to User:Jimbo Wales and many users, including admin User:Alex Bakharev and former opponents of Tajik pleadged to unblock Tajik or at least give him a chance to express himself in an ArbCom. While Thatcher131 persists that I am Tajik, Tajik's IP and writing style on the Jimbo Wales discussion page show that I am not.
All the mess started when Thatcher131 blindly blocked Tajik with a wrong accusation (i.e. that Tajik was the same person as User:Tajik-Professor). Thatcher131 did not have any evidence for that and he still does not have any evidence. Tajik was practically muzzled in between of an ArbCom and when Tajik wrote something as an IP, all admins turned against him and accused him of evading the ArbCom. Meanwhile, countless others have been accused of being sockpuppets and checkuser confirmed that none of them was Tajik [43]. A checkuser file by admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has also confirmed that Tajik had no sockpuppets. All other checkuser requests that could have proved Tajik's innocence were systematically blocked by Thatcher131 and User:Dmcdevit.
Everyone is telling Tajik to contact the ArbCom, but so far, the ArbCom has ignored all requests. They simply wanted Tajik banned (for some reason), and they do not want to re-investigate the case.
Thatcher131 is an extremely untrustworthy admin whose un-neutral position and biased decisions in favor of User:E104421 are known. In both cases, Tajik and Beh-nam, he banned the opponents of E104421, although E104421 is himself an extremely disruptive POV-pusher with a long block-log. You can ask admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise about him.
And while many disruptive users of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 will be back after a 1 year ban (despite multiple sockpuppets and meatpuppets), Thatcher131 and "his friends" have banned Tajik indef. Not even giving him the chance to speak.
Before you make any further decisions, PLEASE observe Tajik's and Beh-nam's case independently. Thank you very much.
BTW: User:E104421 is partially a meatpuppet of User:Moorudd, also known as de:Benutzer:Westthrakientürke in the German Wikipedia (with a very long block-log). He is being observed by some admins, including User:Elian who is an admin in the German Wikipedia. Both accounts are at least related to that of de:Benutzer:Postmann Michael, a user who has been banned because Pan-Turkist POV and German Neo-Nazi propaganda.
Hi, back again...my work is never done. Can I see See You Next Tuesday (band)? Chubbles ( talk) 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Done Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sort out the links on Locations in Cyrodiil when I have a mo. & Cyrodiil+ Plus Oblivion (dimension)
This wasn't proper, it was a referenced article, it was notable, I can prove it was notable. It is the setting for a multi-million copy selling game. Therefore it is known familiar to millions. There were 6 for keep and 6 for delete and I sincerely believe it didn't fail WP:FICTION. The result should have been no-consensus at the very least. This discussion should be re-opened, deletion is the last option not the first and as the rules say, Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy , it isn't a definitive set of policy. TostitosAreGross ( talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
On my previous RFA (back in August), some of the oppose editors suggested to renominate in a few months, which I have (now), yet there are still opposes. If it goes over 10 opposes, you can snowball it. Is it me, or will the legal threat always go against me in RFA's? BTW, the reason for the resolved tags at WP:ANI is actually intended to ease the board, see this comment about a possible adjustment to the archiving system designed to ease the board. As a matter of fact, I've been doing that for about 20 edits. Dav nel 03 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Spartaz, thanks so much for your confidence and support!
--
A. B.
(talk)
19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Spartaz,
Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. |
Hey, can I see Weapon of Choice (band)? Thanks! Chubbles ( talk) 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A new user? I've been here for a few months. I am also not too stupid. I do have a bunch of questions that I'm too scared to ask! Like about templates. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Hmm, I'm the last person to ask about templates - I can barely manage simple mark-up. Spartaz Humbug! 23:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)