Wikipedia:Editor review/Solumeiras

Solumeiras
I am using this editor review as an attempt to try and solve conflicts I've had on here, and for advice on how to become a better Wikipedian. I know that currently I won't pass Requests for adminship, but if I can make myself a better editor so that I can pass it, and become a better editor in general it will be all the better. Solumeiras (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Sorry, archiving as user banned

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * My contributions to articles are really maintenance, nothing more.
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * I have been in conflicts over my use of WP:RFPP and WP:AFD (although the nominations were not bad faith). I am still attempting to deal with them.
 * 1) (From User:Jéské Couriano) I note that most of the unprotection requests you've been asking for as of late are either extremely touchy subjects or BLP vandal-targets. While I can understand your rationale for Pete Price, could you please explain to me your rationale to unprotect an article that has been (more or less) the subject of three Arbitration Committee cases (LLaR I, LLaR II, and Nobs01)? -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Pete Price article, it was because it says in the protection policy that protection should not be used to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users (which, in some cases, as with articles like Toyota Corolla and Leeds are useful. Also, no article (except for widely-used templates/infoboxes or high-visibility project pages) should really be fully-protected or semi-protected for any length of time. If I was protecting them (and speaking as someone who is an admin on another wiki, non-Wikimedia owned), I would give them short expiry times. Yes, the subjects may be controversial, but it's better to let people make good-faith edits than lock them out. After all, IP addresses can make good contributions as much as registered editors can. However, even though the articles may be BLP vandal-targets, sometimes it locks out good-faith anon and new contributors. --Solumeiras (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As regards the Lyndon LaRouche article, well, no article in mainspace should (IMHO) be protected indefinitely. That's the only reason I was requesting unprotection. After all, Tots TV couldn't be kept semi-protected indefinitely, despite the fact the user kept IP-hopping, and that was almost as bad. --Solumeiras (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Pete Price article, it was because it says in the protection policy that protection should not be used to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users (which, in some cases, as with articles like Toyota Corolla and Leeds are useful. Also, no article (except for widely-used templates/infoboxes or high-visibility project pages) should really be fully-protected or semi-protected for any length of time. If I was protecting them (and speaking as someone who is an admin on another wiki, non-Wikimedia owned), I would give them short expiry times. Yes, the subjects may be controversial, but it's better to let people make good-faith edits than lock them out. After all, IP addresses can make good contributions as much as registered editors can. However, even though the articles may be BLP vandal-targets, sometimes it locks out good-faith anon and new contributors. --Solumeiras (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As regards the Lyndon LaRouche article, well, no article in mainspace should (IMHO) be protected indefinitely. That's the only reason I was requesting unprotection. After all, Tots TV couldn't be kept semi-protected indefinitely, despite the fact the user kept IP-hopping, and that was almost as bad. --Solumeiras (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the block log of the Tots TV vandal:
 * 19:51, 1 January 2008 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.121.109 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 18:17, 6 October 2007 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.121.109 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 21:38, 24 March 2007 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.195.27.122 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 07:34, 18 March 2007 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.36.241.72 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots Tv Vandal)
 * 13:46, 11 March 2007 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.38 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 18:58, 9 March 2007 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.121.178 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 15:03, 4 October 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.169 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 15:49, 2 October 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.121.21 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 13:48, 30 September 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.100 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 16:57, 28 September 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.37.40.25 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 16:56, 28 September 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) unblocked 82.37.40.25 (Talk) ‎ (Unblock Tots TV vandal to extend block on his current IP.)
 * 16:15, 19 September 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.180 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV Vandal)
 * 16:48, 13 September 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.121.227 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 12:59, 5 September 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.121.227 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 12:28, 1 September 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.121.5 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 12:28, 1 September 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) unblocked 82.47.121.5 (Talk) ‎ (Unblock to extend block on the Tots TV vandal)
 * 13:27, 30 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.36.241.103 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 13:27, 30 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) unblocked 82.36.241.103 (Talk) ‎ (Unblock to extend block on Tots TV vandal)
 * 13:17, 14 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.195.27.43 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Extending block on the Tots TV vandal, so that block will last until his IP shifts again.)
 * 13:16, 14 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) unblocked 80.195.27.43 (Talk) ‎ (Unblock to extend block on the Tots TV vandal)
 * 15:46, 12 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.195.27.2 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Extend block on the Tots TV vandal, so that he will remain blocked until his IP shifts again.)
 * 15:45, 12 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) unblocked 80.195.27.2 (Talk) ‎ (Unblock IP to extend)
 * 12:38, 10 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.43 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 00:22, 6 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.121.89 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV Vandal)
 * 00:22, 6 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) unblocked 82.47.121.89 (Talk) ‎ (Unblocking to extend block on ToTs TV vandal)
 * 11:17, 2 August 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.50 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 11:28, 25 July 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.45.55.160 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 11:21, 17 July 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.18.154 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 16:04, 10 July 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.36.241.131 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 20:22, 8 July 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.195.27.61 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 14:43, 6 July 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.195.27.61 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 06:24, 2 July 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.18.82 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 15:28, 29 June 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.37.40.29 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 16:17, 27 June 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.52 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 14:52, 22 June 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.46 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Tots TV Vandal)
 * 14:43, 16 June 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.37.40.131 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 16:12, 14 June 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.57 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Tots TV Vandal)
 * 18:24, 8 June 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.36.241.165 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 15:18, 30 May 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.36.241.165 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 16:02, 25 May 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.36.241.165 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (TOts TV vandal)
 * 12:24, 30 March 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "150.204.50.18 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 12:08, 30 March 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "217.33.74.20 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 12:20, 28 March 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.242 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Tots TV vandal)
 * 17:59, 24 March 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.242 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Tots TV vandal back with another IP. 24 hours should force him to find yet another IP)
 * 16:19, 21 March 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.47.42.170 (Talk)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Returning, IP jumping, Tots TV vandal. Blocking this IP long enough to force him to get a new one.)

It seems Tots TV is a particularly hard article to deal with for admins:
 * 16:14, 3 October 2006 Winhunter (Talk | contribs) unprotected Tots TV ‎ (unprotect per new info on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWinhunter&diff=79267474&oldid=79249557)
 * 15:49, 3 October 2006 Winhunter (Talk | contribs) protected Tots TV ‎ (continuous vandalism from anon [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
 * 03:02, 15 September 2006 Voice of All (Talk | contribs) unprotected Tots TV ‎ (Page protected for a while; hopefully protection is no longer necessary.)
 * 08:12, 5 September 2006 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs) protected Tots TV ‎ (trying semi-protection again [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 18:17, 31 May 2006 Kilo-Lima (Talk | contribs) unprotected Tots TV ‎ (hopefully vandalism dies down)
 * 16:23, 26 May 2006 Kilo-Lima (Talk | contribs) protected Tots TV ‎ (vandalism is still on the go, see the history for evidence; try and unprotect in a few days [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
 * 06:29, 23 May 2006 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs) unprotected Tots TV ‎ (removed protection)
 * 03:12, 19 May 2006 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs) protected Tots TV ‎ (trying semi-protection [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
 * 19:37, 27 March 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) unprotected Tots TV ‎ (Cannot leave protected indefinitely.)
 * 16:22, 21 March 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) protected Tots TV ‎ (Target of regular, IP hopping, vandal. Trying Semi-protect to try to discourage vandal. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Lyndon LaRouche is pretty much, in effect, should be treated the same way as the Tots TV article, regular short-expiry semi-protections. --Solumeiras (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is how you feel, then how do you regard the virtual (and later actual) semi-protection issued as a remedy to the Arbitration Committee decision regarding the Bogdanov Affair? -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even the Bogdanov Affair "meme" will probably die down eventually - look at the Clock Crew meme and its deletions, that died down over a period of time. --Solumeiras (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a user who is a meme fighter (see List of Pokémon (241-260), its talk page archives, and Talk:Mudkip/Archive02), I heavily dispute that the Affair is a "meme" of any sort. Further, unlike the Clock Crew, the Affair received large amounts of press. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pleae justify this disruptive and abusive use of templates. . Many of them require that you explain what is wrong on the Talk page for the article, which you conspicuously failed to do. Greg Locock (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There were a few "Bogdanov" sockpuppets, e.g.,  etc. - so it could be considered to be a "meme". The Clock Crew did get mentions, but probably in computer magazines. However, the Bogdanov Affair should be unprotected for a bit, just to see if there is no problems for now. --Solumeiras (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article's remedy means that any new or unregistered user editing it gets banned as an editor importing any external conflict per the decision. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 00:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What if a new user has edited 4 other articles, then edits Bogdanov Affair - do they get banned?? --Solumeiras (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was testing out new Javascripts in my monobook.js, that was the justification for it. --Solumeiras (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly suggest that you become more familiar with several policies and guidelines. You recently tagged two individuals as being "Core biographies", indicating that they are among the 200 most important biographies to the encyclopedia. Both are in fact about at best marginally notable models, and one of those articles has even been "prodded". The core tags have since been removed from the Biography templates. I believe you would be very well served by not making such unjustified claims in the future. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I ended up here because I made some edits without logging in. I stopped logging in years ago as a verified user because of people like this guy...None of the edits can be characterized as vandalism. But, when I came back to see what action had been taken on my possible copyright violation notice (to be more clear on the policy), I found a message telling me to stop vandalizing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.156.39.30 I went over my edits, have no idea what he is talking about. So, I went to his talk page. It is protected. Went to the link that he supposedly created to leave messages. Does not exist. I guess it is SNAFU here at wikipedia, but this guy is up for being an editor. Since this is the only place left to leave any message, I am doing it here. You guys should take into consideration that he: But, go ahead and make him an editor. The name "1,000,000 teenagers" will only become stronger as a description of wikipedia. 71.156.39.30 (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) left a note for vandalism without making it clear where it leads to.
 * 2) made it impossible, not just difficult to contact him.
 * 3) uses a doppelganger SunStar_Net, in order to make it more difficult to contact him.
 * 4) the talk page is full of needless arguments he has gotten into with different people.


 * Hi 71.156.39.30. Please see Sockpuppetry of Solumeiras? Solumeiras was blocked from editing, so even if he were made an editor, he still would not be able to make any posts to the encyclopedia. -- Suntag  ☼  14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)