User talk:Spartaz/Archive6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rogue Gremlin...again

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)

  • Clearly a sock but not positive that its Rogue Gremlin although the obsession to playboy is notable. I have blocked as an anon sock. Spartaz Humbug! 05:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

BattleZone

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)

Update - its been sprotected for a period of one week. --Marty Goldberg 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about 71.76.62.9 block

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)

Honestly speaking I can't remember how I came to that conclusion and rerunning the rdns and whois checks now I see evidence that this is a dynamic ip rather and fixed. So unless its changed since the block (unlikely) it appears that I screwed up. Spartaz Humbug! 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this. No significant harm seems to have been done, since, as you pointed out, the block expired quickly enough, and subsequent edits from this IP don't bear any resemblance to its earlier misuse. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cydonia Mensae

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)

Regarding the LifeRing deletion

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)

List of Christians AfD

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)

  • Sorry for the delay - I'm away. Basically its indiscriminate information. Even the way it was framed meant that inclusion was too hit and miss to be properly encyclopaedic and its too broad an area to properly define a manageable list. Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the response. I happen to disagree with this interpretation of the list criteria, but I respect your decision. I inquired only because I wanted to make sure the closure gave due regard to the arguments presented, and was not merely a result of "vote" counting. Would you be willing to add this deletion rationale to your closure message at the AfD page, just for the record? Thank you, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:57, 10 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)

I don't have a problem with you giving it a go. Ultimately these things are down to community consensus and there might need to be a discussion to establish this but I won't initiate this. Interesting idea and at least it saves the problem of a diffuse unmanagable mess of information. Go ahead. Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks!

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)

Appreciate it! I thought just letting them know first would be better, I've had another look at the article itself, and it does not really state its notability and thus I sent it to be speedied, failing that it could be a AfD candidate. Phgao 08:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at all of the 3RR posts and it seems some are very clear cut in that the user is actually vandalising, so it could be dealt with easier with a report to AIV instead of a long somewhat timeconsuming report (comparted to AIV) to 3RR. Phgao 08:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I guess that's right as the onus is on the user reporting, not for an admin to decide for themselves and perhaps get blasted if it's not correct. It should be easy to see that it is a violation. Phgao 08:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
OH and I did have popups but found it way way too annoying ;) Phgao 08:33, 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]

KNM [12], [13], [14]

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))

  • 24 hours. Please don't bring your content dispute here. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100

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. —LactoseTIT 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostargue

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)

  • Check the user's early contributions. 3rd or 4th edit refering to a wp prefix policy. Almost unbelieveable overlap between their area of interest and that of kirbytime and recent edits stalking and harrassing an established user. Clearly they have been here before and if they are not an abusive sock then all the owner needs do is identify themselves (I'll take an e-mail) and I will unblock. Concerning 3RR, I'm not the only admin would is prepared to give a final warning to an established good faith editor who strays over the line while discussing changes. I also took into account that another established editor of the template left a message of support on the report and that they were being provoked by an harrassing sockpuppet. I don't think my warning left much doubt about the consequences of any future infraction. Seems to me that admins are generally damned if they block and damned if they don't. Ultimately our responsibility is to act in a way that supports the creation of the encyclopaedia and warning a productive user and blocking a sock seemed to me to be the most practical way of doing this. If you are still concerned about this, I can always stick the decision up on an/i for review. Spartaz Humbug! 19:34, 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)

  • Checkuser came back inconclusive but that doesn't mean the user wasn't a sock. There is a tool that enables extensive comparison of users contributions and I used that. My judgement was that the level of overlap was sufficiently high enough to be suspicious. Seriously, are you really suggesting that a user who quotes a wp policy in their first five edits and then discovers the reference desk within their first dozen hasn't been here before? That beggers belief - I had been here over 6 months before I discovered the reference desk existed. I again point out that the user was harrassing and stalking another user - clearly there was a history here that wasn't apparent from the user's contributions which again suggested that we were dealing with someone who had previously used another identity to edit and was now using a new name to get even. Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What tool did you use "that enables extensive comparison of users contributions and I used that" that is not checkuser?
  • Regarding his policy quotation in the first five edits. If you are talking about this edit then note that Mostargue is quoting the policy quite incorrectly, something we can expect from a new user.
  • If you think the user needed to be blocked on account of harassing, then you still need to compile evidence.
  • In any case, I strongly suggest this case be taken to WP:ANI, where the community can come up with a concensus, and that Mostargue be temporarily unblocked so that he can defend himself.Bless sins 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the 3RR issue you have had a number of blocks for 3RR violations but in the last case I see that Eagle took into account that you were trying to discuss and unblocked you quite quickly. It seems that you therefore benefited from a similar approach and I can't quite see why you are castigating me for taking the same issue into consideration - unless of course you think Eagle was wrong and shouldn't have unblocked you. You are aware that 1300+ admins means 1300+ different approaches to the admin tasks? There is not and never will be a hard and fast rule on anything because the admin corps is absolutely incapable as a group of agreeing collectively on anything. The bottom line is that the admin who considers the report decides on the outcome and they use their best judgement in deciding where and when not to block. I'm less block happy than most so maybe another admin would have blocked when I gave a warning. Then again, I'm sure that many other admins would also have acted the same or roughly similar way. That's why we have an unblock system so that blocked users can ask for a second opinion of their block and sometimes the reviewing admin will unblock so the system does work to an extent.
In this case, the disruption to the project from the edit war was minimal as we are talking about a barely edited template that gets subst'ed - the edit war was clearly over because I blocked the sock-puppet and another regular editor to the template was cleatly not being disrupted by the warned editor's actions because they spoke up for them at AN3. Had the user been disrupting the work of other editors you can rest assured that I would have blocked them. Otherwise, I'm very reluctant to block any established editor who is contributing to the project. Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding my block and subsequent unblock by Eagle: I never violated 3rr. Infact, in the 24-hour period before I was blocked I had only made 2 reverts. In general, people aren't blocked for 1rr (making 2 reverts). However, in your case you didn't block someone for 3rr, for which people are generally blocked. If the decision is left entirely on admin on duty at that particular time, then the 3rr policy is quite unfair. For a strict admin in a bad mood will be less reluctant to give out a block than an admin who is more lenient and just happens to be in a good mood. Also it strikes me that you are claiming that some users are above the law (so to speak). Shouldn't wikipedia rules apply equally to everybody?Bless sins 13:55, 17 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)

User:Mostargue

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)

Humbug???

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)

Really? o.O -- Ned Scott 04:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gray62. Thank you for your concern. I have had this sig for nearly a year and this is the first concern that has been raised about it by anyone. It wasn't commented upon in my RFA which I would have expected had other editors also viewed it as borderline uncivil. In short, I'm not persuaded that there is a problem but I will certainly review the matters should other editors raise concerns. Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

3rr

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)

I'm not offended at all but we always strive to avoid even the appearance of bias and therefore try not to make decisions concerning editors with whom we have had recent disagreements - its just another of the things we do round here. Spartaz Humbug! 11:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt57

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)

Sure. Go ahead. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

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)

  • just stay off my talk page unless there is something constructive to discuss with me. Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • But there absolutely is. Can you advise me what exactly I can do to make Peace with Mikkalai? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Christopher Erskine

You forgot about this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

3rr again

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)

Dale Hample DRV

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)

User:Regiment

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)

Thank you for your advice. I'm afraid that I disagree. Their behaviour has been unacceptable and a lengthy block is the only way to register the fact that we will not tolerate this conduct. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 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)

Hi, I'm going to be away for the next couple of days and probably won't have time to look at this for a bit. Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it, Spartaz. For the record, I endorse your block, and wouldn't support a lifting of it simply because the user "has made no edits .. since his/her last warning". Anthøny 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

T-Rock DRV

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)

Hi again

Any chance I could beggar you to see 90 Day Men? Thanks! Chubbles 04:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN3 report, Good friend100 (talk · contribs)

Spartaz, check out my reply to your report closure regarding the above user. Cheers, Anthøny 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This again... Would you mind giving some input, re. my comment there? Cheers, Anthøny 13:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WOverstreet

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)

Geoeg's latest block

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)

Hello. Two weird coincidences bring me here. I have been helped often by User:Dicklyon in some of my efforts in updating photography pages, for example Digital single-lens reflex camera and Lenses for SLR and DSLR cameras. I just went to his talk page to ask him a question and was shocked to discover he was blocked. So please consider this posting to be a character reference. :-)
Second factor that motivated me to post here is that we share a similar native language and the same country of residence. --RenniePet 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DLM AG

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)

  • Notability: I have added "The company is notable as being one of the few in the world which is still able to manufacture new steam locomotives."
  • Sources: I had already added [21] and [22]. Is two not enough, or do you regard these sources as unreliable?

Biscuittin 09:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see them as reliable. They are enthusiasts sites and are not subject to peer review or internal oversight. Websites are often of doubtful value because any bloke could write what they want and put it on the net. We generally look towards mirrors of traditional media (the BBC, newspaper sites etc) or something that is clearly considered to be factually based with effective mechanisms to ensure that information is accurate. (not that I can think of an example right now). Presumably, if the company meets our notability criteria there are alternative sources that you can find. Spartaz Humbug! 12:33, 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)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Langmaker

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)

I'm hesitant to get involved in fixing an article whose AfD I closed and kept, but you have prodded me so to do. If I can't find any WP:RS soon, then I will nominate it myself. Bearian 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

About Good friend100

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)

  • He has just been to arbitration. There is no point in going there again so soon. Perhaps we should just reaffirm the 1RR and give him some rope. I'll drop into the ANI discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Legend of the Green Dragon

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)

yeah so im off my block

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)

You do know that all this stems from Komdori's report? If you can jog your memory back to my one week ban, I was doing nothing wrong until he thought it would be funny to pick an excuse with a couple isolated reverts I made. That one week ban was, frankly, the last block I was going to expect. I didn't plan on edit warring again. Yet Komdori's faulty report (to which even you disagreed with), has just thrown me into some deep hole. You talk as if I'm some criminal whose been screwing around. Umm, no. Yes, I have many blocks made against me. But what Komdori tried to do is going overboard. I'm assuming that you didn't read my entire rant from my talk page. I'm not going to repeat everything I wrote there. Here is just a fraction of my argument how this latest ban was totally uncalled for. I didn't do anything wrong. The only reason I got blocked was the fact that I had a bad record, and that put a lot of weight in getting me blocked. Thanks to Komdori's artful selections of lame diffs, it just looks like I was being a bad boy again. I wasn't.
I'm sure after that one week ban, nobody would have filed an ANI on me if nobody had reported me.
Since I'm on my last rope, I'll try not to press the undo button. But considering what other editors do at Korea-related articles, I'm not going to sit and do nothing. I'm not going to just sit here and cry about my parole. I'm not going to let Komdori take this to a personal level. Wait, did I just say let him? He already has. For some reason, Komdori hates me personally. Do you think its vigilante justice Komdori does to help the administrators cut out bad seeds? No, that latest report shows crystal clear how much this guy hates me. I mean, filing a faulty report with lame diffs? An established editor like Komdori should know what is a violation and what is not.
Am I ranting again? I'm betting that you think I'm being snotty now that I'm out of my block. I hope you don't think that. I'm simply complaining about the block I just had for no reason and how people can get away with ruining Korea-related articles to their so called NPOVness. Good friend100 01:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Not only are you ranting but I didn't block you. Spartaz Humbug! 09:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for unblocking of User:Shshshsh

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)

And you want me to do what about it? Shshshsh needs to cool down a bit based on his interactions there. Spartaz Humbug! 12:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Mate, surely if Shshshsh needs to calm down a BIT - User:Sarvagnya needs to calm down loads - why is there no blocking for him? Not trying to be nit-picking but on your user page it say's to tell you about your mistakes - and yes mate this is one BIG one. Sarvagnya's the man with the main problem. O ye, and if you've got blocking powers just look at the block log record of User:Anwar saadat - time for him to go? Universal Hero 17:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly cannot have made a mistake blockinh Shshsh as they say on their talk page they knew about the 3RR & and they are welcome to use the unblock template to get a review from an independant admin. Being an admin doesn't mean taking on every case and complaint that passes your way. I already have Good friend100 and Geoeg to keep an eye on and not much time to do much else. ANI is where any further complaints live, not here. Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 3 November

2007 (UTC)

I thought according to WP:Block blocks are not supposed to be used for cool down periods? Nn123645 13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed they are not. Nor are users supposed to show contempt for our editing norms by ignoring the 3RR and disregarding blocks. Your point was what? Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh

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)

WP:EVADE

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)

    • I would have released the block yesterday but they made it impossible for me to do that by parading their contempt for the 3RR on their talk page. Once they had admitted block evasion I had absolutely no choice but to extend their block. This whole mess would have ended yesterday afternoon if Shshshsh had shown any understanding that they had misbehaved and needed to assure me that it wouldn't be repeated. I'm sure they are a very committed editor but it would make their life considerably easier if they thought about thewir impact on other users occasionally. Spartaz Humbug! 14:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking dear friend. It is much appreciated, and as my russian friend says, "Udachi!". Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 13:49, 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)

Thanks for the message. It's indeed very nice of you writing it to me. Whether I'm a good editor or not, I always try to improve my self and get better with every collaboration. They definitely have right to ask me to provide why this or another source is reliable. But I believe that I have right to ask them why they think that this or another source is unreliable, too. Box office India is the official site of box office figures in Indian cinema, and it is used in a FA called Lage Raho Munnabhai, which was featured in "Today's featured article" section on the main page. Will they remove it from this page? The fact is that some editors usually see a site with the word "Bollywood" in it, and instantly project it as an unreliable site, which is a completely wrong attitude.

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)

I remember once reading an article on rediff or TOI or the tribune mentioning the site, somewhere it was written "according to box office india" but I can't find it on-line.
Everything which is shown in BOI.com is actually right, and that's I'm saying according to my awareness and involvement in all kinds of Bollywood's media. I mean, talk shows, television, award ceremonies, newspapers etc. Everything which is pointed out there, comes to be eventually approved in the media. A few days ago it was said that "Speed", "No smoking" and"LaagaChunari Mein Daag" flopped, and it has always been that way. I trust this site 100%. I can't say anything else. And I don't know why it's projected as unreliable. Almost every Bollywood article uses it, as I said, including one featured article. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh found it, see please Indiatimes mentioned it on several occasional times "According to..." - [24][25]. I think if it is mentioned in reputable sites which use it as a sorce for themselves, it is definitealy reliable. regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • yes, that's exactly the kind of evidence you need to present when someone challenges a source. Have you told the others? Haroshaya rabota (good work). Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!! Yes, I informed User:Nichalp‎. If you don't mind, I copy this message to another two editors. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S (Spasibo balshoy... right?) Shahid • Talk2me 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If you see the notes on my talk page.. This one user claimed that I'd removed comments while it's not right. I took the libertiity to remove sites that are no longer in the article and sites which were clarified. Apart from that, I removed Blofeld's comment which was clarified between two of us. That's why I removed and I was sure for a fact that he would have no problem with that. Just wanted to clarify in case any speculations come across you. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Geoeg and COI tag again

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)

User:Shshshsh

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.

diffs

Sarvagnya 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note that, User:Shshshsh appears to edit the article as if he is the owner of that article.
Every effort of other editors (like Amarrg and myself) were being reverted by this user. Just as an example, I spent about 30 minutes on the article for "Early life and background" section alone, trying it to improve, by addressing all the concerns such as flow, copyedit, self-claims, direct quotes from critics, and few other comments from FAC. But what is the result? Within few minutes, it was reverted to his version. And, in my talk page, he claims, he has rewritten that section with major neutrality, while the previous diff clearly shows, he has just virtually reverted to his own version. I believe, these kind of bad faith reverts does not help anyone, neither the article. Thanks, - KNM Talk 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
My message and response to you (Shahid • Talk2me)
Your diffs:
  • [32] (Is it a revert? Just a shift of a review. What's wrong? Shahid • Talk2me)
  • [33] (it is only a single revert, with no relation to the previous one. Gnanapiti didn't notice the reference, and added this tag, we discussed it, and he even thanked me. Shahid • Talk2me)
  • [34] (One tag was unnecessary. Another one was replaced with a ref. What is the problem. It is even not a reversion of nothing. Shahid • Talk2me)
  • [35] (It was an edit of my friend Blofeld. He knows that it was not the best way. We are not permitted to write reviews in reported speech. It's a POV. It's not a revert again, only some restores. Only some. Shahid • Talk2me)
Sarvagnya seems to be a bit unaware of some policies like 3RR rules.
A) Most of these diffs are not reverts at all. I have full right to disagree over some issues. And you have to discuss things before doing some drastic edits.
B) These supposed reversions are not over one issue, and again, are not reversions at all.
C) I've bracketed a comment to every diff. As you see, most of the diffs are no more than speculations.
Sarvagnya said, "But it seems to me that it was a big mistake to unblock him without giving him enough time to calm down" - I suggest to him/her read the WP:BLOCK policy. Administrators should not block users to calm them down. Please read it.
Sarvagnya has some problems with me, particularly because of the apparently non-RS sources. I proved that boxofficeindia.com (for example) is reliable. User:Spartaz agreed with me. Sravagnya just doesn't want, because, as per him, it reads to him like a fansite. Interesting.
As for KNM, I didn't revert any of your version, but rewrote, and please take it to your attention - I rewrote. Yes, I'd restored some things, but rewrote and did not completely revert to its previous version. I'm aware of most of Wikipedia's policies and WP:OWN too. You guys have full right to make your edits, but I guys have full right to disagree and ask you to go to the talk page, which you didn't do (especially when your so called concerns are not supported by any policy. Thare are no policies about quotations.). That's the main reason to edit wars. Apart from that, at that time, when KNM was editing the page, I sent him several masseges, but he ignored them completely - [36][37] etc... Now, yesterday, you addressed your concerns on the ralk page. Wasn't it better? Definitely was! And me Gnanapiti discussed this tag that he's added. I repeat, he didn't notice the ref, that's why I removed it, and eventually, the text was rewritten.
KNM took this GA article to a GA review. He and Amarrg were editing the page, adding tags etc. which I was addressing, adding references. This review is the main reason to Blofeld's decision to leave Wikipedia. He was not able to continue. I feel the same thing these days. I don't care for this article being GA or not, but I get too upset these day on Wikipedia, yes I am. I'm not doing nothing, I'm not creating pages, not expanding articles (like I usually do), I just revert vandalism seen on my watchlist. I was willing to leave Wikipedia since the FAC. It's hard to be here. I'm afraid to see "the straw that breaks the camel's back" upon me. It's very difficult. My best regards to everybody. Shahid • Talk2me 11:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

your unfair blocking of matt57

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)

whatever spartaz.just remember that since ur an admin ur supposed to be a role model for all other editors,not a figure of oppressionGrandia01 19:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I need lessons on being a rolemodel from a user with as many civility warnings as you have. Spartaz Humbug! 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
that was in the past.i changed and i see no reason for you to even mention this unless you're cleverly using this as a "prelude" to block me(your favourite hobby i assume)Grandia01 23:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A question of good faith

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)

Geoeg

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)

Oo. So That's what I was looking for. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

what is the difference between content dispute and vandalism?

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)

Given your revert parole you are only safe reverting vandalism if it is clearly designed to damage the article. So replacing text with lol lol lol is clearly vandalism. Its not vandalism to remove a template or info box. Blanking sections could be considered a content dispute if the text is clearly contentious and previously disputed. To avoid breaching your editing restrictions I recommend you stick to dealing with the LOL LOL LOL stuff. Leave everything else to someone else to deal with. Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 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)

That would be a content dispute. Its certainly not a free ride for you to revert it and claim its vandalim. Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if the user completely removes EVERYTHING about Korea in Goguryeo? If that is not the case, would the solution be to leave the article as it is, and discuss on the talk page/warn the user? Good friend100 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
its still a content dispute and should be resolved on the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sig

Do you have any particular suggestions? TJ Spyke 02:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

something with more contrast, I'd suggest. Spartaz Humbug! 09:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of article "Online Operating System"

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 would have thought that after the article was deleted at AFD you would have got the message about it failing to meet our notability guidelines. Then you recreated it a number of times and it got deleted again and again. The problem is that tjhe subject has not demonstrated that it meets our notability guidelines and will continue to fail until such time as you can demonstare multiple non-trivial independant coverage by real world media. Do that and the article will be easily kept... Your attempts to insert this article are disruptive and you will be blocked if you continue to persist. I susggest that you recreate the article in your user space and submit it to Deletion Review for approval. Please do not waste your time with this until such time as you have sorted out the sourcing issues. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I truly understant your position but please tell me why articles such as eyeOS, youOS, XinDesk and others are more notable than the article about the "Online Operating System"? I read through the notability guideline but I dont think that the articles of the opther webtops are better than mine :) What is the criteria here? 85.127.182.244 18:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look at WP:WAX., Seriously, there is nothing to stop you prodding them or nominating them at articles for deletion if you feel that they don't meet out content quidelines. Just make sure you don't waste your time nominating anything with acceptable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:DRV

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)

Thanks for the message, I'm very sorry for the confusion and anger at my muddle-ups. For clarification of my situation see here. Regards, Rudget zŋ 18:46, 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)

Your Violation of Policy

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)

Request

Hey... is there anything worthwhile in the deletion history of Digger (band)? Thanks Chubbles 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Something fishy with them there Gators!

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)

Non-free images

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)

There's nothing quite like a McDonald's‎

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)

I hadn't realised he wouldn't be allowed to change it. The unblock was to change name not to allow them to edit with the name. Nothing wrong with that. Spartaz Humbug! 16:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

Got another one for ya...Exploding White Mice. Thanks! Chubbles (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd take me months to clear my edit history of all the nasty things I say in edit summaries. I probably have a "reputation" for being "difficult", too... I never craved power and still don't, but I have to admit having the tools would make things a little easier for me. Meh. Maybe some year. Anyway, thanks. (P.S. KWSN was the deleting admin for that article, and it happened yesterday...) Chubbles (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
N-Dubz is up, ready for merge. Chubbles (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

edit warring at Ahn Jung-geun

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)

cradle of liberty dispute

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)

Why are my repeated removals of unsupported statements considered "vandalism", but evrik's repeated reinsertions not?66.77.224.17 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, if not vandalism but disruption, why are my commented, repeated removals of unsupported statements considered "disruption", but evrik's uncommented, repeated reinsertions not?Brian Westley (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD closures

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)

List of Portuguese Americans AFDs

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). --Coredesat 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nero page protection

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)

Try seeking a third opinion WP:3O or an article request for comment WP:RFC Spartaz Humbug! 15:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

JAMAA DRV of 24 November

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)

  • :0 - oops. My bad. Sure. I'll do this now. Spartaz Humbug! 21:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No problem, we all make mistakes at times. GRBerry 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jenny

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)

Silver Screen Classics

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)

  • Yes it was me, I forgot to log in, big deal, I don't have to log in everytime I want to edit anything on Wikipedia or raise a complaint. MusiMax (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ericsson R290

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)

  • Press released and company specs are not reliable sources. An online review is hardly a reliable source. There is clearly a need for something more substantial otherwise the article is not verifiable and becomes original research. If you can find reliable real world sources I will consider undeleting. Spartaz Humbug! 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. I hope I don't seem argumentative — this is a genuine question: for a technical product of this sort, what kind of thing would constitute a "real world source"? The existence of the product clearly meets verifiability tests because the manufacturer is so major as to be a reliable, although primary source; the notability appears not to be in contention at this stage (that comes later, fair enough); and the secondary source provided, you have ruled out... so where does that leave the search for an acceptable source? Cheers, – Kieran T (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Two that come to mind are Press articles & Trade Journals Spartaz Humbug! 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, how about these: [41], and [42]. – Kieran T (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just checking in... if you don't have time to review these, could you let me know please? – Kieran T (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I can see from your talk page that you're pretty busy, so I've been reading up on Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Deletion review. It seems as though I've done the right thing in coming to you first, and that now that I've suggested some extra content, the correct next step is to recreate the (improved) article, as per here:
If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available.
My slight concern is that the proposer of the deletion was talking mostly about notability, but since that wasn't the reason you went with on the deletion, that seems now a moot point. In any case, that proposer is steadfastly pushing for the deletion of a lot of articles, and I think in that context the case for this one standing out (amidst the other products being nominated) is fairly clear.
If you object to my recreating this page, please let me know so that I can begin the full Wikipedia:Deletion review process if that's really necessary.
Thanks again for your assistance. – Kieran T (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quel surprise?

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)

Deletion closing of Guitar controller compatibility

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)

Thanks

One of my favorite places 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.

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

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)

Wrike

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)

I think re-creation is permitted. Could you please undelete the article? Abdullais4u 10:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)



Rogue Gremlin Back

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

Resolved

Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

reminder

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)

Beh-nam & Tajik

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.

Request

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)

REminder

Sort out the links on Locations in Cyrodiil when I have a mo. & Cyrodiil+ Plus Oblivion (dimension)

Cyrodiil Deletion

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)

  • Hi, I don't accept the references in the article meet the guideline for reliable sources. The site appears to be a fan forum according to the about us and would not therefore meet the usual standards of fact checking or peer review. Secondly its only one resource and notability is aboout providing muiltiple independant sources - i.e. more then one. You may find my comments below helpful in understanding my reasoning for the afd close. I'm open to reviewing the close if you can find extra sources to verify the information in the article. Spartaz Humbug! 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Spartaz, I took a look at it and it seems to be a fairly clear case of no consensus about both the policy and its applicability. WP:FICTION does not at this point have consensus even as a flexible guideline, and I don't think articles can properly be deleted on its basis. I'm not saying it will come out the way I want, but at the moment I think it is basically undecided. it's not up to me to decide what wpedians in general will choose to do, but I do think the only fair thing to do in the present situation is to not express your own opinion of what it ought to be--which may in fact be the final one, for anything i know, but close as no consensus. Maybe it will be clearer next month,after further discussion. DGG (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • DGG I'm very surprised that you are arguing that I have substituted my own opinion for the consensus in the discussion. And, to be honest, a little offended - can you explain the basis for this assertion? The delete argues were rooted in policy arguments such as N, V NOT#Game Guide & RS. The problem with the sources (everything taken from a fan site that has not been established as a reliable source) was raised several times during the discussion and was not addressed meaninfuly by the keep side. The keep side made multiple assertions of notability but did not back these up by providing sources when challenged and also made numerous WP:WAX arguments. I didn't rely on FICT at all as I prefer to fall back on multiple reliable sources and verifiability when considering afd closes. Consensus is the measure of a discussion again policy not a head count and this position is repeatedly upheld at DRV. That said, don't you think is disingenous to argue that FICT is depreceated when you added the disputed tag at 23.22 on 8 December [44] and as far back as 17 July (I couldn't be bothered going back to check any further) the page was tagged as a guideline.
  • I'm only following policy and don't have an axe to grind in any way. Frankly, I couldn't care less. All I did last night was close a couple of related AFDs because there is a backlog. If you can prove notability of the article (not the game - that's clearly notable) and verify the information with reliable sources then I will more then happily review the close and reverse it I have got it wrong. If anyone one had done this during the discussion I would have closed this as keep whatever the numbers of the actual discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)\
  • All I'm saying is that the article should have been given no-consensus and then WP:TES would be given time (maybe a month) to find and add some secondary sources. Then next time the article would be a keep. The sources I believe were not just fan material but in-game texts, so basically straight from the horses mouth, so it was reliable. As for secondary sources I think I could find a couple that would establish Cyrodiil's importance to the subject matter (The Elder Scrolls series).TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The offer to review this once you have found reliable sources remains but I'm afraid that you need to come up with them first. For the reasons listed above I'm afraid I didn't find this AFD a no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This I can do, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. TostitosAreGross (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

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. Davnel03 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn it. Oh well, I guess this is the way forward. :) Davnel03 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Spartaz, thanks so much for your confidence and support!
--A. B. (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

xDanielx's RFA thanks

Request

Hey, can I see Weapon of Choice (band)? Thanks! Chubbles (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It appears to have come from the band's website and is potentially a copyvio although the deleted page said reproduced with permission. I hav e-mailed this to you as its an earlier version than the one currently up. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 13 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz/Archive6&oldid=1145847053"