|
Can you please protect User talk:Writeitin? He is vandalising it after being blocked. I believe he should have gotten an indefinite block instead of a 24 hour block for vandalising userpages and making a non notable article. Momusufan 02:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have upped the block to indefinite. If he continues to hand out personal attacks, then I will protect his talk page. Sean William @ 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He continued and User:Zzuuzz just blocked it, Thank you. Momusufan 03:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ombudsman commission is that way."[1] can be interpreted as either directing people to use the Ombudsman, or as a statement that the Ombudsman is the way stated in preceding comments, such as being involved in "abuse of checkuser privileges" or "accusations of checkuser abuse". The implications of the possible meanings are significantly different. (SEWilco 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I'll take this as an opportunity to clarify myself. I intended for this to mean "This is not the proper venue for such disputes. Allegations of checkuser abuse and privacy policy violations should be directed towards the Ombudsman Commission." I had hoped that this case would be declined, but now I inadvertently put my name on top of one of the more controversial arbitration cases. Sean William @ 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You've removed my checkuser request ([2]). However it exists actually and is here. Could you help with listing it at WP:RCU? Alæxis¿question? 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed it. Sean William @ 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Alæxis¿question? 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tis a shame that you failed. Sean William @ 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OI was about to add this when i edit conflicted:
- It can be stretched that G8 Doesnt apply, because it contains UNdeletion discussion that does not appear elsewhere. ViridaeTalk 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No BLP violations, so keep. This is firstly a talk page of a protected deleted article. As such there is no better place to discuss developments in the story that may potentially lead to the article being written again. The arbcom case reffered to in the nom did not and does not have any impact on the existance of the QZ article (see the rulings) or the talk page in which to discuss a potential QZ article. There is no BLP vio in this at all. It is 1. The article talk space, a space appropriate for talking about the subject. There is no negative material there at all, the sources have been provided (copied the ones N dug up over to the talk page) and the issue of wether QZ is a private person is extremely subjective, and in my opinion rather moot considering the widespread media coverage he has recieved. Summing up my opinion: No BLP violation and there is yet to be any assertion why there is one, and a useful place to discuss the potential for a new article should the new information turn out to be correct. ViridaeTalk 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please consider re-opening to let the discussion continue ViridaeTalk 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I will not re-open the discussion. This article is absolutely dead, with prejudice against re-creation. After a lot of pain (and an ArbCom case), we determined that this individual was not notable and did not deserve an article. If somebody wants the text of the talk page, then I'll post it in a subpage. Other than that, there is no reason for this lone talk page to exist. Sean William @ 01:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be an editorial decision, not one for the closing admin (wether you believe the article should exist is immaterial to your closure). The articles existance was never resolved, least of all by the arbcom case. Multiple speedily-out-of-process closed DRVs and afd do not make it dead. Regardless of that, the talk page existed because of the possobility of new information, potentially giving more validity to the article. There was/is nowhere else central to discuss that new information except that talk page. If you are happy to copy the talkpage for further discussion, then you must agree that the BLP arguments in the mfd are invalid. That just leaves the G8 reason, under which you deleted the talk page and nothing in our deletion policy forbids recreation of an article with significant nw information. The talk page was discussing significant new information, since the article itself is protected. On those grounds I ask you to let the community have its discussion. ViridaeTalk 02:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that the BLP argument was at least a little erroneous (I assumed that we were still editing out QZ's name), and will edit it out as soon as I get the chance. However, the CSD G8 deletion still stands: an orphaned talk page is grounds for speedy deletion. The news stories about QZ being offered film roles are nothing better than rumors, and should not be covered until a reputable movie database like IMDB covers them, or various other reliable sources. As that does not exist yet, there is no decision altering "significant new information" that would change the status of the article. Sean William @ 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was in the process of trying to get to the bottom of that, and when I had done so if I concluded what you have concluded (that it is only repetition of rumour not anything solid) then I would have explained to badagini that what he was providing was not enough and either blanked or speedied it until such time as there was enough, if that point came. The rapid close of the discussion however stopped me making my case on several points,1 the irritating Its a BLP violation !votes without any rational as to why, 2. the needed ability to have someone to rationally discuss a protected deleted page without having the rug yanked from under out feet. I don't believe a speedy was necessary - untill the mfd the sources badagini was referring to had not been provided, so the talking through of them was essentially just starting. ViridaeTalk 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm perfectly OK with you reverting my decision. (I only just realized that with the precedent set by the Badlydrawnjeff RFAR, you can't undelete content deleted under BLP.) Although I still believe that the G8 was valid, it has been contested, and I'd really like to avoid a DRV. I'll be reversing my actions in favor of a discussion shortly, I suppose... Sean William @ 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about the undeletion, I have now had a chance to look at the sources, and agree they are rumour. However can you modify your close rational to allow recreation of the talk page to discuss a potential article should solid evidence come to light that the signup has occured, rather than leave it as is, to be speedied again as recreated deleted material. ViridaeTalk 04:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have re-closed it, with no prejudice against recreation providing that new information comes to light. Before the article is created, however, a DRV might be in order. Sean William @ 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, no problems with that one. Thanks for your understanding. ViridaeTalk 14:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Sean William @ 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I further looked into it, although I make straight A's anyhow, but technically neither are incorrect so I shall just leave that part alone. If for some reason you have anything to say, please do so on my talk page. Thanks. Wwefan980 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the context of execution, hanged is correct. Sean William @ 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Pine* your userpage is beautiful... but I think if I copied it it would not be great due to our similar names. Yet more confusion.
Feel like redesigning mine using your idea BUT with different colours sometime if bored? :) —Sean Whitton / 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to. Just tell me the colors and I'll get to work! Sean William @ 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I have been here on wikipedia for over a month, I did not appear out of the blue as you stated on the RFCU. Francisco Tevez 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You appeared out of the blue on Qst's talk page, which is what I'm referring to. Sean William @ 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. I have known him for nearlly a month, he is my adoptee... and that name got on Ft weatherman's page because I was copying the multiple account symbol to use and I forgot to change it by accident. I got involved because I seen the vulgar edit summaries. Francisco Tevez 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
