User talk:Durova/Archive 23

VinceB

Hi. You have blocked and warned User:VinceB in the past (your latest warning is here), so I wonder if you would not mind looking at his behavior also this time. He is leaving personal attacks against me and other users on random pages and it is difficult to track his activity down (although he usually signs his comments, he rarely logs in, so the comments do not appear in his contributions page). For example, he accused another user of expressing racist and fascist views on a completely unrelated talk page.[1] He has just mentioned me in a derogatory way on a talk page, which I have never edited.[2] Despite my requests and warnings by other users (including admin Khoikhoi[3] and User:K. Lastochka [4]), he did not calm down and he did not remove his previous attacks. In addition, he has recently abused my talk page to post his spams against other users[5] and he left several comments of the same kind ("you lied", "you abused references", "I can not believe, that you're not some political extremist", "you're supporting anti-Hungarian 'very far-right' ultra-nationalist ppl.", "Maybe you should start to think first") also for me. VinceB has been blocked for personal attacks before,[6] but he now benefits from his illusory invulnerability after WP:PAIN was deleted. None of the warnings on his talk page (including the one from an admin) worked. I will greatly appreciate if you can help us anyhow. Tankred 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been more than patient enough with this fellow. Your diffs check out. Following up. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his discussion, Vince cited some "sixth law". Is this part of some list and may I have a look? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raul654/Raul's laws #108. I cited it to Vince in regard to his sockpuppet evasion of the monthlong block. Durova^Charge! 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.

You blocked U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs) as a suspected sockpuppet of 1B6 (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/1B6 came back showing the two editors are unrelated and so I assumed good faith on USA's behalf and unblocked the editor. I did this because the basis of the block was the sockpuppetry. If you believe I have acted inappropriately, please let me know. --Yamla 05:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me if that's the case. I hope there are no further problems. Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 05:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry for jumping the gun on this one, checkuser should have been the first step. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, just to be sure, I don't have to worry about 1B6 framming me?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Durova^Charge! 00:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

I don't see you having commented either direction in the pete townshend ban. It is getting old and needs to be closed, I can't because I commented. Can you close it conclusively? Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, did that the other day. Durova^Charge! 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community enforced mediation

I have added a request now at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests, thought it would be a good example. _→AzaToth 15:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections on your part :P I would like to take on this on if it is appropriate to take. (I'll check after the two editors certify). Navou ^banter / _contribs 15:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do object. Slow down, Navou. Durova^Charge! 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a misunderstanding, I'll send the particulars email. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Durova^Charge! 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion of your block

User:VinceB is evading his fresh 1-month long block by using an unblocked IP (23 edits since the block was applied).[7] VinceB even openly admitted that he is using 91.120.97.127 during his block, so no CheckUser is needed this time.[8] I believe such behavior undermines credibility of any administrative measures applied against disruptive editors. What to do with a guy who does not care about warnings and blocks and just switches between computers whenever he is blocked? Honestly, I have never seen anything like that and I ran out of ideas how to deal with him. Tankred 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and put this up at WP:CN with a siteban proposal. Tankred, you and Panonian have the best familiarity with the circumstances. I'll voice my support. Durova^Charge! 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, find my proposal here. Tankred 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've conominated. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least you tried. Some of these users have hearts of stone. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do my best. It's a fine line between giving a user enough chances to get it right and permitting a troublemaker to drive productive editors off the project. I may have been too soft in this instance. I kept hoping mentorship would make a difference. Durova^Charge! 02:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Also, I don't sign in all the time, and so I've also got an edit history under [9] and [10] (with the exception of the two Rosie O'Donnell edits). Sorry for forgetting. Soxrock 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please post this information in your own user space. We see so many problems with rules evasion via sockpuppets that a lot of editors are suspicious of all multiple account uses. It would simplify things on all sides if you set forth exactly what you're doing. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dereks1x continued

I think these diffs can stand without comment on my part.

Dereks1x placed "expert" tag in the John Edwards article to encourage an expert to conduct original research on Ms. Edwards' cancer (see talk, basically the crux of the dispute) at 12:19 on March 26
New User account created, User:Doc United States at 14:30, March 26
After a few days of editing medical articles, Doc United States adds a comment in support of Dereks1x's position at Talk:John Edwards today.

I'll take this to AN/I if you prefer. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run a request at WP:RFCU for this one. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU accepted, checkuser confirmed by jpgordon. See the sock's comment after jpgordon's confirm notice. It seems Dereks1x is not getting the message and I'm concerned about edits made by this sock under false credentials which is a serious matter. I suspect other accounts as well. Tvoz |talk 09:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked the sockpuppet and blocked the sockmaster for two weeks. Thank you for keeping an eye on this. Impersonating a medical doctor to game biographies of prominent politicians is unacceptable. Follow up as needed. Durova^Charge! 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"CEM"

In fact, now that I've read your CEM page again, as far as I'm concerned, I'd indeed prefer a somewhat different model than what you envisage there. We'll need a more active and more "authoritarian" role of the mediator in this case. These two guys are not Piotrus and Ghirla. Just my opinion. -- Of course I'm also not sure how the acceptance processes of CEM are supposed to work. You seem to have quite an institutional hierarchy set up there, what with "communitiy mediators" and "trainees" and stuff - (who's training them?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose every new program runs into a couple of bumps. CEM is pretty much a one woman show so far and I've been flattered by how many people have been interested in mediating and how eager some of them are. Although I'm not a particularly hierarchical person by nature, I want to set a few precedents in the beginning so the community gets a clear grasp of what this is. Durova^Charge! 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, Dmc has now taken the case to Arbcom, he wasn't happy about the unblocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussions ordering by time on article Talk:Mudaliar

Hi Durova,

I am re-arranging the entries in the Talk:Mudaliar talk page for article Mudaliar, according to the time the entry was made. The User:Mudaliar is reverting my edits. There is no reason why he reverted it.

Venki 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Durova,

Venki123 (talk · contribs) is jumbling the posts on the talk page and is vandalising it. There is simply no reason to do this except to create confusion. You can very well see this is suddenly being done after about 5 months. This is not acceptable.Mudaliar 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is not acceptable is that the net result of 11 revisions was only one alteration: complete deletion of my serious advice. I've put it back on the page and advise you both to read it. Durova^Charge! 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see for yourself how Venki123 (talk · contribs) is bent upon vandalising. Is this what you call constructive edits? Why is this being done now? He is completely re-arranging the various posts to create total confusion and then he complains saying that I'm the one reverting his edits.Mudaliar 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to convince me that you're a constructive editor, start by joining the proposed mediation. Then refocus away from other editors' behavior onto your own shortcomings and improving your contributions by citing sources. Durova^Charge! 00:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

I was just rearranging the talk page by time order so that when the time comes for arbitration, it will be clearer for the arbitrators to go through the comments. Shall I do it or not in all the related articles such as Mudaliar Sengunthar, etc ? What is your advice?

Venki 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it makes a tense situation more tense it's probably best to leave things as they are. Durova^Charge! 01:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh well...

...I agreed with you, not that it matters. That was ill-advised in my opinion. Quadzilla99 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The longer I edit the more inclusionist and eventualist I become. Thanks for the comment. Durova^Charge! 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new problem with VinceB

User:VinceB is reinserting his reverted POV from 91.120.82.124 despite his ongoing block and the discussion about a community ban.[11][12] Can you block also his IP please? Thank you in advance. Tankred 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked 1 week, sockpuppetry noted at ban discussion. Durova^Charge! 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CEM

Excellent! Thanks for letting me know. I'm on a bit of a wiki-break this week, but I'll check in a few times at my talk page. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 05:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery needs attention

This gallery has been creating pages for all their artists. There is no assertion of notability, so I am tagging all of them with db-bio. Hopefully the user will get the point and not need to be blocked. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a moment to understand what you meant (I thought some editor had been creating image galleries, rather than an art gallery creating vanity bios). I'll leave a warning on the talk page. Durova^Charge! 16:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I am a strongly left brained person, so at times I express myself better in code than prose. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and good catch. It makes me want to write an essay in user space about this sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

confusion and FYI

I freely admit that I am a sockpuppet of DelloJello. This is done for permitted purposes, not abuse. (forgotten password)
I use a semi-public computer.
I don't necessarily condone what I think Dereks1x did.
Your analysis is flawed. At least one (maybe more?) of the users that has been attacked is completely legitimate because I am near that computer sometimes and can see who uses it. I am not going to defend that person because it only exposes me to false allegations.
I am not particularly interested in editing. As you can see, I've edited only a little about things that I know. Banning me would not harm me as a result but would be overzealous and unfair prosecution.

DelloJello2 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither overzealous nor unfair: it's covered under WP:SOCK as meatpuppetry. You're indef blocked per your own admissions. Durova^Charge! 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock per the SSP decision. Since I was just implementing the conclusion of the SSP, I don't think I've overreached (given my past editing disagreement with Dereks1x). Please feel free to unblock, Durova, if you disagree. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the indef block. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aces High

Wiki policy is to move a section to the talk page if you think the section damages the article, not to delete the section. The section you deleted was a critisism section, which states four simple facts, all of which are verifiable.

The first link is to the game's forum where only members of the game may post and the threads are monitored by the game admin. Forums normally shouldn't be used to cite material but in this case the members are in fact an established group. Since the forum resides on the game's main webpage and is monitored by the games admin I see no verifiability problems. Why do you?

Also, the facts in the section are true no one disputes that but my only means of verifying those are with game films and game voice recordings, which I have. Is there a problem with me using those to verify my claims?--Scribner 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the problem is WP:NOR. You're welcome to copy/paste the section to the article talk section and open a content request for comment on the material, though. In order to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements you should look for game reviews in reliable magazines (not blogs or fansites). Durova^Charge! 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My cite came off the same webpage as the cites for main article. What's good for the gander... The article is little more than promotional drivel article as written. But you're probably right about the OR problem and that's why Wiki becomes irrelevant with all articles other than those about tangible topics.--Scribner 06:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSP cases

They've been worked down quite a bit, and are now back to well within the 10-day range, so I've removed the backlog tag. If you wouldn't mind, could you please go through some of the archived ones and give me some feedback on how I did? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'll dig around. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Latest checkuser is in, multiple socks confirmed. Is there enough evidence to block the older accounts too please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the Veronica Mars fanatic account. Recommend writing up the full evidence for WP:SSP. Akhilleus has been active there and is getting sysopped this week. Drop me a line when you've made a detailed report or wait for him - he's very good (and I have a lot of things on my plate this week). Cheers, Durova^Charge! 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean full evidence for VMF (and possibly El Chulito), given they are the suspected socks? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean for the suspected socks that aren't blocked yet. Durova^Charge! 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the known or suspected puppets listed on ANI are blocked. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I thought there were a few residual ones. Good sleuthing! Durova^Charge! 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although Vintagekits identified most of the accounts in the declined checkuser. I just found slightly more evidence than "they align their userboxes the same way" and tried to present it in a format which made it obvious something underhanded was going on. It probably helped having been involved in a previous similar situation, as I was the anon IP involved in the JB196/Booyakadell situation, and decided an account might be a good idea. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas87 might be a Dereks1x sock

Seems a bit odd that he headed right to WP:CN despite his account being only a few days old. Might check later ... just thought I'd give you a heads-up. Blueboy96 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake ... misread what he was doing ... shows what happens when you move to another shift ... Blueboy96 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's a natural reaction: once people find a few genuine sockpuppets a lot of other things start to raise one's eyebrows. Sometimes it takes a second look before things fall into place. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's more likely than not that Atlas87 is a Dereks1x sock. E.g., this cryptic comment in the PulltoOpen RfA (not long after I commented there), this comment at Doc United States talk page (not long after I started the RFCU), and, especially (this tipped it for me), this and this "due process" comment at the CN (compare to this one Dereks1x left at my talk page). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's doing a damned good job of hiding it so far. Maybe it's because I'm used to dealing with BenH and Mmbabies' socks ... they're so obvious that once you find one of them, they're easy to pick off. We in WP:TVS caught a BenH sock yesterday ... it was obvious after a day of damage to many NYC, Philly, D.C., Toledo and Cleveland stations. This Atlas fellow is smarter. Blueboy96 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic or word choice quirks have helped us to ID Dereks1x socks so far, such as the due process focus of Atlas and Derek. I blocked Atlas87 and requested review of my block at the CN. Given the situation, I thought it would be wise if a likely Dereks1x sock isn't still out there supposedly cleaning his own edits. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is a sock, let him hang himself. All sockpuppets do eventually. I know from catching sockpuppets in political sims (or "clones," as we call them in the sim world). But just in case, Jersyko, I'd file an RFCU.Blueboy96 01:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the result of that checkuser. Durova^Charge! 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if he's trying to wipe out his edits, it won't work--they'd still be there in the history page. That's what led me to believe he might have been legit ... an experienced Wikipedian would know that you can't just revert edits into the ether.Blueboy96 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Blueboy - you're right of course, but I think his aim is to disrupt: I'm not clear if that is a goal unto itself or if there's any other agenda in play. I care less and less about figuring that out - he's wasted an inordinate amount of sysop time and editor time, arguing with him, reverting his nonsense, writing up report after report on him. So I hope that the community ban will be approved and whatever steps are needed to be taken will be taken so we can get back to the reasons we're here. Like figuring out whether The Beatles should have a capital "T" or not. Now that's what I call an issue. Tvoz |talk 06:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't User:DelloJello get an indefinite ban as well? While it hasn't been confirmed via RFCU, it was included in the SSP case.--Bobblehead 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are; it's done. Durova^Charge! 01:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zeuser

User:Zeuser might need a block. He's recreated his favorite vanityspamcruft for the third time. I've only given him a friendly COI warning thus far. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The COI note might have been too vague to be understood as a block warning. I've spelled it out and done my best to be friendly about it. Let's hope the problem stops. Durova^Charge! 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Durova, thanks for your note about that oppose !vote. Since you responded to him, I think I'll hold back for now--I don't want anyone to feel badgered for opposing. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 things that I need to ask you for help

1) Someone mentioned to me that User_talk:SqueakBox is at 412kBytes or so... (User resists archiving), Any suggestions? 2) WP:RfAr, Kurdistan... Cool Cat was asking for help regarding it (since MedCab/RfM failed when parties decline to participate), and I was wondering whether your expertise would be of any help.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment of seeking my advice. Regarding the first one, editors have a lot of leeway about how they manage their individual userspace. The most obvious solution I could attempt would probably just add another 1k or 2k to the problem. For the second situation I recommend an article content RFC. Durova^Charge! 13:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of MiszaBot II

14:11, 2 April 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MiszaBot II (contribs)" (noautoblock) with an expiry time of indefinite (Bot malfunctioning:) (Unblock)

I must admit I am highly disgruntled by your actions regarding MiszaBot II (talk · contribs). You have provided no explanation in the block summary, neither directly nor by linking to some appropriate forum. I took me a while to dig through your contributions and find this. It eventually turned out that it was no real malfunction at all. Yet nobody apparently cared to unblock it and two days passed without a bot archiving the most active Wikipedia noticeboards, because nobody cared to notify the bot's operator (read: me) in the first place. Please be more considerate in the future. Thanks and happy editing, Миша 13 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the misunderstanding. It was done in good faith and I thought I was following the instructions as written. The shutoff option here does not offer an edit summary option and I followed up promptly with a report at WP:ANI. I'll definitely contact you directly if anything comes up in the future. Durova^Charge! 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Hello Durova! Please deactivate this article because it is a copyright violation. Thanks. Helmür Cölser 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Got it. Now please deactivate this article. Thanks. Helmür Cölser 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't overwrite my responses.[13] Durova^Charge! 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material that was copyvio. Durova^Charge! 14:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific Link Campaign

The website BeerAdvocate.com has been added in 131 places. This turned up during one of the COI investigations yesterday. The main BeerAdvocate article was deleted, recreated, and then merged into an article Beer rating that I successfully speedied yesterday. Do you think these links are spam? To my sharp marketing consultant's eye, it seems so. The editor was clever enough to create a template, described at Wikiproject Beer, to automatically inserts these links. He deserves points for ingenuity and industry. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through these links manually. Read about 30 page histories so far. Yes, I see the template insertions. Links come from a variety of editors. Preliminary report on the one that catches my attention: Stlemur. No explanation for the reinsertions. Durova^Charge! 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
- via template:
[19]
[20]
- readded after spam blacklisted:
Original edit by Benzamin:[21]
Removal:[22]
Re-added two days later:[23]

More reinsertion after spam blacklist removal (also without explanation):

Original edit by PAWiki:[24]
Removal:[25]
Re-added:[26]

Durova^Charge! 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the discussion.[27] Beetstra argues this constitutes spam and deserves blackllisting (and deleted several dozen external links on 22 March) while Stlemur defends the links as a large database. Stlemur is by no means a single purpose account (around 3k edits, various topics). I'll let you dig around some more on this one. Doesn't look like a slam dunk for corporate abuse. Durova^Charge! 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a self-declared COI in the discussion, but looks like legit participation (talk page discussion and removes links to beeradvocate.com).[28][29] Durova^Charge! 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will. This talk section is peculiar. I am wondering if Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer is a club of COI affected editors who are mutually supporting each other's spam. Jason Alstrom obviously has serious COI problem. See also this strange comment he made on my talk page. At least they are being civil, in order to fly beneath the radar.Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the edits Alstrom's participation looks appropriate: declares COI openly, restricts participation to talk page edits and to removing links. Unless there's hidden sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry this is on the up-and-up. Durova^Charge! 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a group of editors got together and decided to set up their own rules with respect to a series of beer articles. Whenever a new editor wanders in and starts deleting apparent spam and vanity articles, the beer club gets irked and recreates/reverts. I simply explained my feelings to them. What is the best strategy for dealing with a situation like this? Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following templates may need to be deleted:

I've tagged the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer "guidelines" as essays. A bunch of spammy beer articles need to be cleaned up or db'ed. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had asked me about the reinsertions, I would have explained them...I've just seen your talk page now while I was looking for a rationale for proposing the templates for deletion, but based on what I read above I feel like good faith is not being assumed on my part or on the part of WikiProject Beer. Certainly we need to have more of a dialogue before someone starts talking about mass-deletion. --Stlemur 10:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To speak candidly, your actions did raise my eyebrow but I don't see anything that necessarily says bad faith. I do think it's appropriate to add links manually rather than via templates. As I hope you'll understand, that approach would be highly exploitable (if not in the realm of beer then in other areas). Durova^Charge! 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's raised an eyebrow about, for example, Template:Stn art lrnk. I feel like a double standard is being applied here. --Stlemur 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think an eyebrow should be raised there, by all means do. I was petitioned to help examine a particular situation. I've done so with complete impartiality...well perhaps not total impartiality (my favorite drink is Young's Double Chocolate Stout). I'm not biased against beer. Durova^Charge! 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported all the BeerAdvocate.com links to WP:WPSPAM for whatever sorting may be needed. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]