Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Trusilver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Statement from 61.45.36.159:

Seeing as to how I'm the subject of commentary above, however loath as I am to involve myself in internal politics I feel I should comment and also correct some obvious falsehoods.

  • First, is the general falsehood that user pages are exempt from the rules and guidelines regarding spam on Wikipedia: they're not, as the speedy-deletion criterion is labelled 'General', not 'Article'. Trusilver was pointed towards this clear wording, and that he fails to grasp this point still is troubling. In demonstration of that, I can include this template link to Vanispamcruftisement in the userspace: click randomly on some of the search results and see how many have already been deleted, or you can look through the deletion log to play 'spot the example'.
  • Second, his initial comment to me was rude, accusing me of vandalism for making a perfectly ordinary edit completely in line with standard policy. When I pointed out the standard policy as above, his reaction was to become defensive and even ruder, utterly ignoring long-standing--and completely commen-sensical--policy regarding ANY spam pages on Wikipedia in favour of blind adherence to an inapplicable--and uncited--principle. Further detail in support of my points was met with the virtual equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears. Certainly blustering about someone else not understanding policy, 'when that person has quoted the policy to you, is complete non-starter. I will admit being massively irritated more and more, but his wilful resistance to being educated on the most basic of policies and his overall intellectually dishonesty truly gets on my nerves.
  • Finally -- and I found the irony here particularly rich -- the 'user page' about which he took his misguided stand on principles turns out to be the center of an entire nest of spam. See:
Summary
Accounts
  1. Sanjayakumarsahu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  2. Webteam fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)
  3. Fiorano Software (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Software LinkWatcher search • Google)
  4. 61.95.199.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  5. Fioranoweb (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  6. Webapps (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  7. Fioproduct (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
Spam articles created as blatant advertising and deleted by Wikipedia administrators
  • Fiorano Software
  • FioranoMQ™ 2006
  • Fiorano ESB™ 2006
  • Fiorano SOA Platform
  • Mr. Atul Saini
  • Mr. Vinod K. Dham ,
  • Mr. Srinivas Tati,
  • User:Sanjayakumarsahu (user page deleted as "Blatant Advertising in the extreme")
  • FIORANO
  • FIO ITPL
Articles vandalized
Firoano Software's notability: A Google search on "fiorano software" -ferrari -modenese -samsonite -modena
Reference
Notice that the accounts are not blank because they have sockpuppet tags on them. And no, I didn't spend a great deal of time compiling the above: the spamfighters responsible for weeding this infestation did, and I'm merely copying it--and it's the same list I left on User:Trusilver's talk page, which he deleted without bothering to read it.
In short, he has managed not only to be wrong, but completely, extravagantly, and even aggressively wrong. Though I'm not officially entitled to a vote, I do not believe that he has the judgement, knowledge, grasp of policy, or ability to interact with users required of an administrator, and is entirely unsuited for the post. --61.45.36.159 03:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: In answer to Question 7a, User:Trusilver proclaims himself vindicated because someone else removed the tag. Well, I readded the tag to User:BornUpontheTide--a bog-standard advert for someone's clothing company--before I began typing the above, and now it's gone already, so someone else clearly though it to be unambiguous spam. Those with admin privileges are invited to view the content of the deleted page to see for themselves about how appropriate a 'user page' it was.
I have and will continue to tag spam as I encounter it--regardless of how spammers attempt to game its appearance--and if this bothers Trusilver, I advise him to take it up with those administrators who routinely delete such and rely upon pages such as this to assist them. Note that clicking on search results from that page will pull up numerous examples already deleted. --61.45.36.159 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


I am only going to respond to this once. I removed a tag from this user because I feel he has misapplied G11 (and just because he's gotten away with it in the past doesn't mean he was correct in doing so) and he has responded by making a multitude of personal attacks. He, in fact, violated policy on contested deletions by replacing the speedy tag after I made a statement in contest of it per deletion policy: "If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions". He also noted that I deleted his comments on my talk page without reading them - damn right I did, just as I delete all personal attacks posted to my talk page. Being obnoxious and rude does not buy you the right to be heard, quite often it acts in the opposite way. Trusilver 04:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have not 'gotten away' with anything, I am following policy. That you are unable to comprehend the policy doesn't change that. --61.45.36.159 00:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)