On 12/03/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
The aggressive
approach is not the way to deal with a newbie with a short edit
history. Nuking him when he apparently used a sockpuppet (The Russian
name translates as "Brilliant pearl".) was a hasty move. What would be
better would be to explain very politely and very respectfully at least
once that this sort of thing is just not done, as I have in an off-list
message to him. Drastic measures should only be used if he becomes
clearly defiant.
Your description of the situation is wildly at variance with reality.
The user involved was running two different identities in an AFD, has
just had his main account suspension upheld after 4 entirely spurious
unblock requests; and had been caught resurrecting a speedied
unverifiable and self-interested article under a different name. He
was also essentially harassing other users, including myself.
The absence of third-party references alone should not
be sufficient for
deleting an article.
Basically, you're saying anybody with a website can create a wikipedia
article and expect to not get it deleted. That doesn't fly. It's
inconsistent with NPOV VER NOR every core policy, none of them work
without reliable sources.
Ec
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.