| Revision as of 17:49, 13 February 2007 editJeffrey O. Gustafson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,218 edits move more procedural comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:53, 13 February 2007 edit undoJeffrey O. Gustafson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,218 edits not that bad actuallyNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| Sigh. Well, one way or another this is the messiest AfD I have seen in a long time. It now seems to require an admin to dedicate his time to watching over it so it doesn't degenerate as before and presently contains no delete opinions. Can we not finally put this one to rest? I cannot see a delete concensus ever being reached. And the procedural issues have utterly failed to gain any interest at AN/I. We seem to have all wasted a lot of time due to an unknown quantity of IP editors. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | Sigh. Well, one way or another this is the messiest AfD I have seen in a long time. It now seems to require an admin to dedicate his time to watching over it so it doesn't degenerate as before and presently contains no delete opinions. Can we not finally put this one to rest? I cannot see a delete concensus ever being reached. And the procedural issues have utterly failed to gain any interest at AN/I. We seem to have all wasted a lot of time due to an unknown quantity of IP editors. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :It is only messy in that there is a new user who doesn't quite get what is going on, and alot of people blathering on about procedure rather than discussing the merits of the article. Keeping the procedural stuff here will clean things up and get a fresh set of eyes on the page. --] - '']'' - ] 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Should this page be protected too, to prevent more of the same antics? ] 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | Should this page be protected too, to prevent more of the same antics? ] 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:53, 13 February 2007
Use THIS SPACE to complain about all the horrible procedural violations. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What is going on here? This is really silly. So the page is created. A few hours later an anonymous user sends the page to AfD as their _first_ Edit. While I am honestly working to gather sources and justify this guys inclusion, more anonymous users with No Edit History play havoc with his page. There is vandalism, reports of copy-vio, and all manner of general harrassment, for no stated reason. I spend more time undoing the vandalism than contributing (See Old AfD). Finally and experiened editor with over 5000 edits (Adrian) notes what is happening and removes the article from AfD in keeping with Wiki Consensus (See old AfD). That is reversed by an anonymous user with no Edit History, for no reason I can see, and we are back at AfD. Anonymous vandalism continues and finally the site has to be semi-protected by admins because of all the abuse by users with no edit history. Captain Barrett 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Well, one way or another this is the messiest AfD I have seen in a long time. It now seems to require an admin to dedicate his time to watching over it so it doesn't degenerate as before and presently contains no delete opinions. Can we not finally put this one to rest? I cannot see a delete concensus ever being reached. And the procedural issues have utterly failed to gain any interest at AN/I. We seem to have all wasted a lot of time due to an unknown quantity of IP editors. WjBscribe 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is only messy in that there is a new user who doesn't quite get what is going on, and alot of people blathering on about procedure rather than discussing the merits of the article. Keeping the procedural stuff here will clean things up and get a fresh set of eyes on the page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Should this page be protected too, to prevent more of the same antics? (jarbarf) 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- _Sigh_ yeah, it would probably be a good idea. Good Looking out. Captain Barrett 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that would be a bad idea. Given that most of the delete opinions have come from IP editors, shutting them out would be counter-productive. I fully support closing this AfD, but shutting out one side of the debate seems counter-intuitive. WjBscribe 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)