Airwolfe31

Spam in Peterson Power Systems

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Peterson Power Systems, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Peterson Power Systems is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Peterson Power Systems, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with Peterson Power Systems, you will be blocked from editing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just re-reviewed the article, and I remain convinced that it's primary purpose was advertising the business in question, rather than providing a neutral overview of it. In particular, warning bells were spruiking the fact that the company is an "authorised dealer", providing a product list, and linking to not one but four websites owned by the company. However, if you feel that I'm being unduly harsh, I invite you to have the deletion reviewed at WP:DRV, which has the power to restore the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

What I've been block

Lankiveil can you please help me out. Now I've been barred from everything? The only thing I did since you removed my article was write a comment to you! What's going on. I don't understand all the hate, I'm just trying to do a wikipedia project for school. I would gladly changed anything that didn't seem NPOV. This is my first Wikipedia article, help me, don't crucify me. I'm trying to learn how to use Wikipedia, that's all. Can someone un-ban my account please?

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)AirWolfe31

I have left a note on the talkpage of the blocking admin, asking them to take another look at this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for having them look at this. I can assure you guys I am no sock puppet or muppet :) Seriously, I'm just a student do a school project. I hope I can get some of the info that I put time into back on my own user page until you guys approve of it. Anyway, thanks for responding.

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is a sock puppet!

I am not a sock puppet. I have no affiliation to the user "Web Marketing". Please to not shut off my account. Geez, does anyone have an email address so I have have a simple discussion. It's so hard to do anything on this site. You are turning a first time user of Wikipedia off forever. I work in the web industry and and convinced your reputation is built upon how you treat people. It goes without saying that this is not the way to do things. I'm a person to, if there is a problem we can have a discussion. There is not need to delete my account. Thanks. --Airwolfe31 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To know about a sockpuppet read WP:SOCK What you are accused of is block evading as your account continues the actions of an account that was blocked earlier. You are now blocked from editting for using multiple accounts abusively. Rgoodermote  07:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the reference but I haven't done that. I'm a student doing a school project. I have no interest in using multiple accounts on Wikipedia to cause trouble. I work in the web industry and I understand just how important it is for people not to abuse technology. I hope someone will take a look at what I have actually done which was just try to write a wikipedia article. I spent a lot of time on it editing it day after day. I thought I was coming from a NPOV but was open to any and all criticism so I could improve the work. I'm just a normal guy trying to contribute to Wikipedia. It feels terrible to put so much effort into something and be accused of being a spammer. I hope you guys will try to be understanding and give me a chance. Obviously if I'm going through this much effort with the "Same Account" there is a reason for it. The reason is this is my account! Can someone help me? --Airwolfe31 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you feel you have been blocked wrongly please use this {{unblock|your reason here}} here on your talk page. Please note that you must prove that you have good intentions and that you will probably be ignored if you give no (good) reason for an unblock. Please note that using Wikipedia as a host for your project is against Wikipedia policy as well. Rgoodermote  02:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock my account

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Airwolfe31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I asking anyone who has the power to unblock my page to help me out. I am a first time Wikipedia user and a college student. I was doing a project for school and decided to pick "Peterson Power Systems" as the company I would do my wiki page on. After spending a great deal of time on this page and editing it so that it would meet the NPOV, the page was deleted without warning and my account was suspended. I was given 2 1 line explanations, "blatant advertising" and being a sock puppet". For my article being deleted I was given this further explanation after I had made a request: "In particular, warning bells were spruiking the fact that the company is an "authorised dealer", providing a product list, and linking to not one but four websites owned by the company." 1. authorized dealer was a "fact" not an opinion 2. Microsoft has a whole list of links for their proucts on their wiki page 3. Microsoft has links to portals, products, websites, and much more on there wiki page (a lot more than 4 links). If these are the standards you are using then lets be fair. Also, I was open to any and all suggestions to improve my page. I would have been happy to remove or revise sections. However my page was just deleted. I regards to being a sock puppet. 1. First the fact is that I am a student not a sock puppet. 2. Is there any proof that I'm a sock puppet? No! Please check on this, seriously. 3. Use your common sense, Why would I go through all this trouble if I was a sock! 4. Look at my record, I have been editing the same page. No other pages, just this one. Can someone please speak to me like an mature adult. I have received nothing but 1-2 line explanations why I have been banned. Seriously people, this is not professional in the least. I have spent a great deal of time on this and if you have deleted me hastily or made an error in judgment than please correct it. I have enough of the super admin elitism.

Decline reason:

Hmm, you and User:Web marketing have an unusually strong interest in this Peterson chain of tractor dealerships in Northern California. Amazing coincidence, that. Microsoft has links to their product pages on their Wiki page for a very good reason ... they're an undeniably notable company. The two sources provided for Peterson were from the company itself, which completely fails the "two non-trivial mentions in reliable sources other than the company itself" standard we use for businesses. After the page was deleted, you were invited to make your case at deletion review. You chose not to. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC) {{unblock|Hmmm. is not a reason Daniel. Seriously, Your denying me on a hunch? Really! This is not only unethical but very unprofessional. Second I did not do a deletion review because it said to talk to the Admin first, I was following your wiki suggestions. Lastly, this if my first wiki article and as I have mentioned in every previous message I was open to comments and suggestions. I could have gotten other notable mentions, don't you think someone could have said that before they deleted and banned my account? How do you guys operate around here? I guess this is a very good experience for me. I've been in the web community building websites and apps for a long time. I had no idea this was how Wikipedia was run. I'm really really glad I decided to do this project. For even if I never get a second chance with you guys I have found out in documented detail how you handle these types of situations. I have to say I'm extremely disappointed. You should really try to treat contributors with more respect and patience because we don't get paid for this stuff. I'm taking a college course and this was an assignment.

Again, Please give me a reason as a college student why I can't use Wikipedia. Why you are banning me? The reason you gave me had to do with my article not my account. Legally this is very important since you are taking millions of dollars as a tax-deductible nonprofit charity. I look forward to your response. Thanks. --Airwolfe31 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)}}

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment 1: Like user Web marketing (talk · contribs), whose contribs yours resemble in significant ways, you may not yet have comprehended this encyclopedia's neutral point of view policy and the fact that the encyclopedia is not an advertising or marketing medium (see What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox).

You say you are a student doing a class assignment. Are you both students in that class? Is it a class in advertising / marketing? — Athaenara ✉ 21:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am taking a class on marketing and one of the assignments was to get familiar with the different information mediums such as Wikipedia. However I did read the NPOV but this is my first time doing a wikipedia page and clearly it was not good enough. I am aware that wikipedia is used for informational material not promotional material or advertisements. This is why I spent a great deal of time editing my page to make things NPOV compliant. I would have loved some feedback but instead I got banned. It is quite possible that the "Web Marketing" User is another person in my class. Whoever it is may have chose to do a company similar to mine because Peterson is one of the companies we have been studying. Again, I will be happy to edit my content if someone would just unblock my account and give me some feedback on the content to ensure it is NPOV and not promotional. Clearly I'm being watched so I'm not sure what the big fuss is. If I don't get my page approved I won't post it. If I try to then you guys can obviously ban me. Honestly I think these messages are now longer than my original page :(

Thanks.

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy should be recommended required reading for everyone in the class. Herewith a helpful warning:

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 21:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment 2: user Airwolfe has been quite diligent in learning wikimarkup and may possibly become a good content contributor here after doing his/her Policies and guidelines homework. Unblocking would be reasonable if and only if that is what he/she intends to become. — Athaenara ✉ 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that people can easily have conflicts of interest on Wikipedia and I understand that this is a community of knowledge not advertising. I intend to be totally respectful of that. If I have written anything that is not NPOV I apologize but I assure you it was inadvertent and only due to the fact that I'm a complete newbie on Wikipedia. I'm sure you all realize that there is some difficulty to learning wiki guidelines, code, etc. I make no claims that I'm great at any of it, I'm not but I do feel I can still contribute with a factual article if given a chance. In fact, I wish my introduction with some of you had come in another way because all I really wanted was some help. I figured that no matter what I was going to make some mistakes an was hoping I could get some gentle nudges in the right direction. Anyway, hopefully I can get access again and someone with Wiki power can restore my article to my user page until it is ready to be published.

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I temporarily restored the article you had been working on in order to move it to a user subpage for you: User:Airwolfe31/Peterson sandbox. — Athaenara ✉ 22:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not reccomend an unblock. Wikipedia is a learning tool. But is not in the way it has been used by Airwolfe. I do not believe Airwolfe is a student and even if he is he is still in violation of policy as he is making an article for a Marketing school. I would be perfectly fine with an unblock if he would use this account for something other than his school projects and move on to some where else because we do not want anything related to marketing here. But from what I am reading. This account will be soley used for a school project and one that violates our policies. Rgoodermote  22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a student currently attending Fall Quarter at Cal State East Bay (formerly know as Cal State Hayward), if needed I would be more than happy to provide the appropriate documentation to prove this. I'm not in the marketing school, I'm in the business school and am taking a Web Marketing class. By creating this article I'm learning how to use Wikipedia and how web technology has allowed many people in different locations can contribute to a single body of knowledge. Although I am a student, this is my account. I will not be deleting or giving this account away after my class is over. It is mine. Like I have mentioned in many of my previous posts I have been in the web development industry for some time and have obviously read Wikipedia and know a little about it. I can see myself contributing more information over the years. I'm not sure why that is a problem. In fact I'm not sure what the big deal is because you can monitor and suspend my account at any time. I was unaware that Wikipedia has a Zero tolerance policy for making unintentional mistakes. Beginners make mistakes. I'm sorry. Jeez. --Airwolfe31 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No need for giving us the appropriate documentation. I will believe you in Good faith that you are a student. However, I do not beleive you had nothing to do with the other accounts as all of the edits are the same along with the very same content. If you promise to no longer do anything related to Peterson Tractors or anything related to heavy machinery, agree to be adopted by an experianced user and admit to sock puppeting (Checkuser request will most likely be filed to find out if you have any other accounts and if you do and you did not admit to them it is very likely that you will never ever be allowed to edit again on Wikipedia until you apologize and not right after.) there is a chance that you will be unblocked. I am not striking a deal with you. I am simply telling you what can be done to get this account unblocked. Rgoodermote  23:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to admit to suckpuppeting please list all of the accounts you have made. They will all probably be blocked except this account. Rgoodermote  23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And, if unblocked, what contributions do you intend to make?  Sandstein  23:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the very last time I'm going to say this. I'm not a sock-puppet! The other entries on my page may have been from people in my class. I did not work with the guy creating the "Peterson Tractor" page, I did "Peterson Power Systems" page. People in my class saw my wiki page and may have added content. But I do not control their accounts. In fact I edited content and deleted stuff that I thought did not meet NPOV guidelines. So given this, I have a couple questions: 1. Is it illegal for me to create a Wiki Page for peterson power systems? 2. Is it illegal for others in my class, school, or life to add stuff too? 3. Can someone tell me what content I added that was so terrible. I edited everything I thought wasn't NPOV. 4. Can't you suspend or warn my classmates accounts if they broke the NPOV not mine?

If I'm unblocked I imagine I would like to finish the page I started. Also I could eventually contribute to the areas of Web Development, Tennis, Street Fighter 2 ;), and given time I'm sure a lot of other topics. But the question now falls you on. Why would anyone want to contribute to Wikipedia for free if they feel like they are being bullied?

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Stand by, please, as I ask the blocking administrator to comment.  Sandstein  23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

EC:

1. Yes, part of the agreement is you stay away from anything related to Peterson and anything else involving heavy machinery
2. Yes, no one in your class will be allowed to edit if it is for the purpose of fulfilling a class project that is for a marketing class. Everyone else is fine if they contribute reasonably.
3. Improper sources, failed WP:NPOV as it only used one source, you made it for a class on Marketing
4. If you are referring to the other accounts and they are indeed not owned by you. They are already blocked. You still broke NPOV by making the Peterson Power System article.

This is the deal

1. Admit to sock puppeting (A Checkuser request will be filed) and list the accounts
2. Do not make anything related to Peterson companies or edit them and do not edit heavy machinery articles
3. Be adopted by an experianced user and work with them for no less than 6 months. (They will decide whether you no longer have to adide by this parole)
4. Failing to comply will result in an immediate block/ban from wikipedia forever or until you have apologized suffienctly.
5. An admin or other user is welcome to amend, remove, ignore or comment on these.
6. Also, if unblocked what do you plan on doing?

No, you are not being bullied and we are sorry if you feel that way. We are now trying to give you an option for unblock

Rgoodermote  23:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In response:

1. I cannot to admit to sock-puppeting because as I said before I have not done that. Nor could I give you any names because I don't know who has contributed.
2. Not sure why I can never edit anything related to heavy machinery but I guess my article was offensive, abusive, or crazy somehow? Actually No, just a wiki page about "Person Power Systems". Absurd, I know. Because if your a small company you don't exist on wikipedia, got it.
3. Who will adopt me, I feel like the red headed step child right now.
4. I'm already banned, I know the drill
5. Yes, please some admin help me....pleeeeaaaaase :)
6. From my earlier post: If I'm unblocked I imagine I would like to finish the page I started. Also I could eventually contribute to the areas of Web Development, Tennis, Street Fighter 2 ;), and given time I'm sure a lot of other topics.
7. I just learned how to create number list is wiki code ;)

Oh, and if I'm not being bullied how come I'm on parole when I've only tried to write 1 article! :( Man, This is harder than anything I've seen. 1 mistake and Bammo! your gone! sheesh.

Really, if you guys don't want me to contribute, just say so. If I'm really not wanted that much in your Wiki Community I understand, I get it. Just say the word, I'm on my way.

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't be getting a deal if we didn't want you here. Rgoodermote  00:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Read through your answers. I am alright with em and I will answer your questions. I will request a checkuser on suspicion that you have been using mulitple accounts to evade a block as to spam wikipedia. This will prove your innocence without a doubt or you will be blocked forever on. You can't edit Peterson related topics because of WP:COI and also because of that class project thing and heavy machinery because the other accounts added Peterson related things to heavy machinery articles. You are allowed to make the article in your userspace..not on your userpage and then have some one (your adopting user) who will then post it for you. Believe me, some one will take you in. You are not banned. You are blocked. A ban is what you will have if you agree to the deals. What I will ask will determine whether you are unblocked or not and this is my good faith speaking and my hope that you are a constructive editor. Do you agree to the terms? A checkuser will take a while. But when it passes through you will be free if no other accounts are found. Some one will be found to adopt you. I think this parole should only last for no less than 6 months but it can go longer than 6 months. You are not released from the parole until the person who adopted you say that you are alright to edit what you please. I would like the input from another user other than airwolfe please. Specifically an admin. Rgoodermote  01:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Per evidence here and statements from you I have doubts that you are not using other accounts. But I do believe you are a student. Rgoodermote  01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is admit and you will be home free. If you don't, you will not be allowed to edit at Wikipedia again. Because the evidence is saying you have other accounts. Rgoodermote  01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree to be user checked. I can assure that I'm not using multiple accounts. My school and class do have free school wifi. They maybe using the same network but my classmates are not using my computer or my account. This in my one an only account. And believe me I would not go through this much trouble were that not that case lol. Seriously, I doubt anyone on earth would. :) Please do what you need to do to bring my account to Wiki Judgment but I'm convinced that you'll see the truth eventually. This is my only account, so I should pass the test.

p.s. Believe me rgoodermote, if I had used multiple accounts I would have admitted it by now. On principle I cannot lie. I did not use multiple accounts so I will not lie and say I did even if it would give me access. I hope you understand.

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not you I need to get permission from. I just need you to agree to the deal.

I'm going to be honest and say..they all say that. You only trust the evidence. Rgoodermote  01:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the deal is that I will be allowed to make the article in my userspace..not on your userpage and then have some one (your adopting user) post if for me. I will be on this parole for at least six month? I'm ok with that. That I can agree to. It would be nice to have some input from an Admin and have them post the article if they like it. I would have taken that right when I sign up for my account :). Anything else I need to agree to?

--Airwolfe31 (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The list is as followed

1. Admit to sock puppeting (A Checkuser request will be filed) and list the accounts
2. Do not make anything related to Peterson companies or edit them and do not edit heavy machinery articles
3. Be adopted by an experienced user and work with them for no less than 6 months. (They will decide whether you no longer have to abide by this parole)
4. Failing to comply will result in an immediate block/ban from wikipedia forever or until you have apologized sufficiently.
5. An admin or other user is welcome to amend, remove, ignore or comment on these.****
6. Also, if unblocked what do you plan on doing?

Note:**** means do not comment to that is for others. Also, admit to sockpuppets this evidence says you have other accounts. I can not unblock you. Merely give you a deal and pass it on to an admin who will either agree to unblock you, add new conditions and then unblock you if you agree to them or will not do anything. An admin has been asked to comment.Rgoodermote  02:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rgoodermote, I strongly recommend that you back off a bit. Your hypervigilance here is conveying the impression that you and only you stand between user Airwolfe31 and his block, which is not the case. You are not empowered to set the terms of unblocking and I'm not surprised that the user feels bullied. The unblock request is active and its inclusion in Category:Requests for unblock is visible to all administrators checking the category. — Athaenara ✉ 07:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Athaenara. Rgoodermote, please consider leaving this to the blocking administrator and to other administrators.  Sandstein  07:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be taking a wikibreak anyways. I should have stopped at the first try because this is a sign that my offline stress is beginning to get to me here. I would like to request that an admin here place the Wikibreak enforcement code in (I believe it is monobook.js) and have it for 1 month. There a personal story as to why I should not do it myself. Rgoodermote  20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, having whacked a couple of the socks, I support an unblock, provided that this user pledges to restrict themselves to one account only (shouldn't be a problem if they're not a puppeteer), and is topic banned from creating any articles related to companies without first getting consensus from say WP:AN that it's a good idea to do so. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

I'm glad a few people believe I'm not a sock. I have no problem using one account because that is all I have ever used. I'm also more than happy to get consensus form Admins or whoever before posting my article. Like I said before I welcome any and all feedback and I think it will definitely make any article I write better. These requests seem very reasonable because the only thing I did was post an article that I thought was NPOV but it was not. An honest mistake, that's it. I'm a first time user and still learning how to write for Wikipedia. Thanks. --Airwolfe31 (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You can (as far as I know!) still work on the User:Airwolfe31/Peterson sandbox page while you are blocked.
— Athaenara ✉ 23:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• From looking at several accounts -- this one, User:Peterson Tractor, and User:Web marketing -- it looks quite likely to me that there is some truth being said here. The Cal State East Bay (when did the name change? Poor disrespected Hayward) connection is clear; both sets of editors (and Peterson Tractor and Web marketing do appear to be the same person, as they explain on their pages) give pretty much the same story (a marketing class assignment). The teacher needs to be slapped a bit with a flounder, perhaps, but this isn't Nasty Spammer crap, this is Insufficiently Clued Students Who Are Willing To Learn crap. I'd say assume good faith, unblock, and see what happens. Of course, we'll hope they all give up on using Wikipedia as a marketing test bed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is Thank you! Yes I am a student that is trying to learn wikipedia and clearly am insufficiently clued but I have made an effort to learn and will continue to. Thanks for the link to the page in my user account that I can edit, much appreciated! And lastly, I'll second the poor Hayward. I like the sound of Cal State Hayward a lot better than Cal State East Bay :( oh well. --Airwolfe31 (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I've not been online over the weekend. I just want to say that I endorse the unblock. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

After a long wikibreak and some venting I come here to apologize to you for how I behaved. I know it is no excuse but a lot of stress has been on me and it has made me rather off. I look forward to editing by your side on this project and look forward to seeing your work. Please forgive me for my behavior. Happy editing partner. Rgoodermote  07:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can go ahead and clear your talk page if that is what you want. You will not get in trouble. Also, think about adding a little bit about yourself on your userpage. Rgoodermote  07:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)