| Revision as of 23:03, 13 February 2007 editAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 editsm Reverted edits by 128.114.238.174 (talk) to last version by Isotope23← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:15, 13 February 2007 edit undoCaptainbarrett (talk | contribs)447 edits ←Undid revision 107935738: JustifiedNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| 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 |
:It is only messy in that ]''], 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) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::Actually, I don't think they were all blocked because not all of them were verifiable ] from what I saw. Just a point of clarification. The blocks had nothing to do with their arguments, We block open proxies on sight.--] 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | ::Actually, I don't think they were all blocked because not all of them were verifiable ] from what I saw. Just a point of clarification. The blocks had nothing to do with their arguments, We block open proxies on sight.--] 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :] blocked some as well. I aggree that roving IPs are disruptive, but they had legitimate concerns that should be addressed. They have had their say, though, and any disruption from any IPs on this AfD will simply be reverted without comment and the page semi protected. At this point, this AfD is generally meant only for experienced editors to comment on. --] - '']'' - ] 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | :] blocked some as well. I aggree that roving IPs are disruptive, but they had legitimate concerns that should be addressed. They have had their say, though, and any disruption from any IPs on this AfD will simply be reverted without comment and the page semi protected. At this point, this AfD is generally meant only for experienced editors to comment on. --] - '']'' - ] 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Comment''' - If I was given the time I could find better sources. But because this page has been consistantly attacked since it's creation I have not had the opportunity. I could get his birth or death certificate, I could find his obit in the paper, there _is_ more. However, I also have a life. I am also not, nor have I ever been a member of the OTO. It seems very probable that Ebony is _so notable_ that people are actively trying to stop the creation of his wiki, permenantly. There is no other reason for all this drama that I can see. The only way to be objective is to leave the page open and submit for AfD again in a few months. Killing this page immediatly makes no wiki sense. If it is this easy to close a new Wiki, wiki is in trouble. Closing it now only feeds whatever forces are trying so vigilantly to squash this. You may be loosing a very important opportunity. ] 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)(Captain Barrett) | |||
Revision as of 23:15, 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 , 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)
The involved IP editors - including the nominator - were all blocked yesterday for being verified open proxy users. I noticed them doing similar stuff elsewhere. Probably one single editor hopping Tor Nodes to vote-stack. Obviously this is not acceptable behaviour, especially when someone is editing from a proxy to evade a block. - WeniWidiWiki 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think they were all blocked because not all of them were verifiable WP:OP from what I saw. Just a point of clarification. The blocks had nothing to do with their arguments, We block open proxies on sight.--Isotope23 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Isotope23 blocked some as well. I aggree that roving IPs are disruptive, but they had legitimate concerns that should be addressed. They have had their say, though, and any disruption from any IPs on this AfD will simply be reverted without comment and the page semi protected. At this point, this AfD is generally meant only for experienced editors to comment on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - If I was given the time I could find better sources. But because this page has been consistantly attacked since it's creation I have not had the opportunity. I could get his birth or death certificate, I could find his obit in the paper, there _is_ more. However, I also have a life. I am also not, nor have I ever been a member of the OTO. It seems very probable that Ebony is _so notable_ that people are actively trying to stop the creation of his wiki, permenantly. There is no other reason for all this drama that I can see. The only way to be objective is to leave the page open and submit for AfD again in a few months. Killing this page immediatly makes no wiki sense. If it is this easy to close a new Wiki, wiki is in trouble. Closing it now only feeds whatever forces are trying so vigilantly to squash this. You may be loosing a very important opportunity. 128.114.238.174 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)(Captain Barrett)