User:Yamla/Samanello

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This discussion was moved from my talk page in order to keep this discussion centralised. --Yamla 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samanello

I am Samanello and have a right to respond!!!: I AM NOT!!! A VANDAL!!! I think I have a legitimate question to post on every page I have placed "This article is proposed for deletion due to the inability of contributers to distinguish the obious incongruity of having articles based in fact about large businesses while denying articles based in fact about smaller businesses." A customer of mine recently placed my business name in wikipedia. I was, of course, flattered. It was an artcle based purely on fact and did not have any advertising slogans or the like. How the heck can you possably justify having the GEEK SQUAD or Circuit City or even Google and not smaller business. I, in fact, think it is not only incongruent, but makes wikipedia horrably incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanello (talk • contribs)

It is interesting to note that this is actually not true. Here, Samanello states that a customer of his created the article (presumably Anything and Everything, LLC), but in fact the (now deleted) page history clearly shows that Samanello created the article and subsequently made comments on the article's talk page that implied otherwise. --Yamla 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You were not nominating the articles for deletion, you were just pushing your point of view by placing misleading information in the articles. Please read WP:N to understand why an article on your business may have been deleted. Your block stays. Your actions have shown you were deliberately attempting to harm Wikipedia and the fact that you continued to do this after you were warned further justifies the block. --Yamla 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't thoroughly read the additions. It clearly reads PROPOSED FOR DELETION and gives the clear concise reason. Furthermore. The moment the IP address block warning came up. I immediately stopped and tried to respond to you. You blocked me before I could even respond. Your kind of actions will kill this community for sure. I demand you unblock me immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanello (talk • contribs)

Yes, and you clearly did NOT propose the articles for deletion (see [1]), nor was this anything other than you striking back for having an article about your business deleted. Please do not post any more messages until you confirm that you have read WP:N. --Yamla 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So, after reading your links, I have discovered 2 things. Number one: I may be guilty of a minor procedural error. That being not using the subst:afd1 tag and so forth at the beginning of the page. I assure you, this was a quite honest mistake and not an attempt to vandal. Number Two: I did read the reasons for proposing deletion and felt and still feel my reasons are legitamate and should be posted for community scrutiny. I will make no promise to not post here. This discussion in and of itself is even more important then the original contributions that sparked it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanello (talk • contribs) ...addendum... looks like we'll have to settle this my more unfriendly legal means. It is really unfortunate that the community here chooses to use such fascist tactics.

You have blocked this user indefinitely. He has now sent an e-mail to the unblock list asking to be unblocked. Could you please advise of the circumstances of the blocking so we can respond to him appropriately. Capitalistroadster 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not block this user indefinitely, another user did. I placed a 24 hour block due to vandalism coming from this user. The user added text to a number of articles on various companies stating, "This article is proposed for deletion due to the inability of contributers to distinguish the obious incongruity of having articles based in fact about large businesses while denying articles based in fact about smaller businesses." According to the user himself, this was because an article about this editor's business had been deleted previously and the editor was annoyed. I have no idea which article the editor was referring to but I have no reason to believe I had anything to do with deleting it. I suspect it was deleted as not being notable. If you need any additional information, please ask. --Yamla 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As per the above line, there is not a chance in hell I'm lifting my indef block, unblock request or no unblock request, it's obviously either a WP:POINT or simple vandalism and I see no reason to unblock. Do you? (pls reply on my talk, I have way too many pages on my watchlist) -- Tawker 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here, Tawker is referring to the "fascist tactics" and legal threat issued above. I admit I hadn't actually seen this comment, left by User:71.120.41.147 but known to be Samanello. I have not previously made a statement of whether I believe the user should have been blocked indefinitely or not by Tawker but I believe these additional actions, combined with prior bad acts on Samanello's part which seem to be WP:POINT, I do not believe the indefinite block should be lifted. I believe the block was legitimate. I would not contest a decision of a group of admins to lift the block, mind you, as it is entirely possible that I am too close to this issue. Nevertheless, I believe it unlikely that Wikipedia would consider it a good idea to lift a block of a user who has behaved exclusively in this manner. --Yamla 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gone back through the talk page edit histories for User talk:Samanello and see no sign that anyone assumed good faith on his part or explained the policy on [{WP:POINT]] or vandalism in enough detail for them to be able to know that they had violated policy. Nor any sign of awareness on their part of WP:LEGAL prior to their threat above.

I don't know if there's a right way to handle escalatingly confrontational upset users, but this was certainly a wrong way... You're supposed to assume good faith in part to defuse situations like this and establish that people have been given warnings which are both accurate and sufficiently detailed as to understand what policies they are violating and might be blocked under. Georgewilliamherbert 07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The initial block was placed after warning the user that he must stop immediately as he was clearly setting out to harm Wikipedia, as was obviously the case. It did not make specific mention of WP:BLOCK but did note that this was the only warning the user would receive. This was triggered by the rapid-fire vandalism of a large number of articles. The user continued vandalising and so a block was placed to give the user time to cool down. After the block, the user read WP:N and nevertheless stated that what he was doing was legitimate and that he would make no promise not to continue once the block expired. Given that the user later accused Wikipedia of being a fascist organisation and threatening me with legal action, I believe it is clear that the user is nothing other than a vandal and indefinite blocks are a reasonable approach to accounts used purely for vandalism. Note that I did not apply the permanent block, however. Further, it is my understanding that this user could simply create a new account and edit using that, putting the Samanello pure-vandalism account behind them. --Yamla 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a new account can be created anytime now that the AB has clicked off. As for warnings, the first was an test4m only warning which led to the 24h block. It is established procedure to indefblock accounts that are only used for vandalism and the likes - there's assuming good faith and then there's assuming we're all idiots. One warning then contiuned action of that nature is almost always an indef, I think Yamla established things pretty clearly. -- Tawker 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between vandalism and disruption. They certainly were disruptive, but didn't remove or alter content on articles.

They clearly had an attitude when they started editing, no disagreement that there was a problem there. But in failing to give them due warnings, you validated their perception that WP is staffed with admins who act capriciously. There was no sufficiently serious immediate threat requiring you to act without warning them properly.

When you shoot from the hip, you confirm their preconceptions that we're bozos too. For the project to be seen as mature, it has to act more professionally and in a more measured manner. The warnings process exists in part to establish a baseline in which even cranky abusers can't complain that they were treated unfairly by abusive admins. When admins shortcut it, the cranky abusers have a leg to stand on. We don't want them to have a leg to stand on... Either they should clue in and behave after being properly informed, or they should be blocked after having been given every opportunity to reform, and not have any reasonable justification to complain about their treatment.

Please keep this in mind as you deal with problem users in the future. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Between 2006-07-16 10:12:50 and 2006-07-16 10:28:30 (mountain daylight time), the user disrupted 17 separate pages. That's more than one a minute and the user clearly indicated he had no plans to stop and would continue if unblocked. In my opinion, it was acceptable to use the test4im template in this case rather than four separate vandalism warnings. On the other hand, I agree that I should have made plain that WP:POINT applied here. I will keep this in mind in the future. --Yamla 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When I said "I make no promise to not post here" I meant right here. I thought that was pretty clear in the context in which it was said. It in no way meant I would continue the page edits I was doing before. Please note that I still call them page edits. Their are 2 things here that I am taking offense to. The first is being called a vandal. Just having to TYPE that word in reference to myself makes me mad. Second, being told I was being warned when, in all actuallity, the desision to ban me was obviously already made. It is obvious since I immediately stopped and was banned anyway. I would also like to comment on the sueing comment. I wasn't threatening to sue a user. I was investigating sueing wikipedia as an organization. It's weird how everyone reads between the lines when there is nothing to read between. My dispute is with wikipedia content and unfair policies. If change can be affected through means of discussion like wikipedia is supposedly trying to do, then their would be no reason to consider legal alternitives. We, instead, would be dicussing the points I made that somehow, and unexpectedly, started all of this.-Samanello

Actually, your edit history clearly shows that you continued to make your edits after being warned. You were blocked simply because you continued your edits. While we technically cannot state that you are a vandal, your edits clearly fit Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. As to your suing comments, I presume that you have decided not to sue Wikipedia. If this is not the case, please let me know immediately and then refrain from any further edits. --Yamla 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)