Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/wgungfu

Wikipedian filing request:

wgungfu (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Pong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

Answer: Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

Answer: link posting violation, constant spam from unregistered account(s).

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

Answer: Talk on his discussion page, forwarded him to the previous discussion on the subject on the Pong Discussion Page. He's convinced these are usefull links and refuses to listen.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

Answer: A solution to this problem of constant spamming from an unregistered editor.

Summary:

Person will not listen to reason and keeps reposting long long list of off site pong "clone" links over and over again after they are removed. It had already been agreed to remove them by other registered users (see the Pong Discussion Page) at an earlier date, before this person started showing up. In fact this person's only contributions on Wikipedia from both accounts (ip's) have just been to constantly re-add this listing. These links are to clones of the game Pong, that serve nothing to enhance the content of the wikipedia entry. In fact it detracts with such a long listing of games that are "similar" to the original, but not the original.

This process now seems to have been seemlessly picked up and continued by User:Haham_hanuka. He as well is ignoring the group consensus reached in the previous discussion on the talk page but yet has said "please use talk page" in his reversion comments.

Discussion:

Hello, I'm Steve Caruso, the Coordinator of the AMA. The kind of problems that you are having with an anonymous IP spamming that article are better suited for the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Reporting the IP there will result in a quick block and prevent the anonymous contributor from continuing their vandalism. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, thanks for your response. I can do that for that address. But now another user has picked up where the IP had left off (and oddly the unregistered IP has stopped posting) - User:Haham_hanuka. So the problem will still be there regardless of reporting the IP that was originally spamming. --Marty Goldberg 21:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm going to close this case, as it has been a month since the issue was reported, and taking a quick look at the article in question, it seems that the problem has stopped. If you'd like the case to be re-opened, please get in contact with me. Thanks, M a rtinp23 15:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

Answer:

AMA Information

Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:

None assigned.

Advocate Notes: I've encouraged the Advocee to take this to WP:AIV instead of filing an Advocacy request. Pending on their response. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed after one month - dispute seems to have been settled. M a rtinp23 15:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]