Ian Woollard wrote:
On 12/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@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.
It's this unduly punitive attitude that is the problem. I don't dispute that there was a suspicious second identity, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he says that the second person was acting as a "friend", and that this will likely result in the wikisuicide of the aghast friend. It's in the nature of face saving devices that we should accept them as literal truth if they will accomplish the desired effect.
Apart from a short series of edits on one article in January, the first edit appears on March 8. An unblock request can only be spurious if its intent is not to be unblocked, and, under the circumstances, calling that request spurious is utter nonsense. The blocking strategies employed in this incident have no remedial qualities, and are more characteristic of schoolyard bullies. Assuming that you are indeed User:WolfKeeper, I find that the comments by Pearlysun on your talk page cannot reasonably be viewed as harassment, and your claim that they are such has no credibility. Resurrecting a speedied article under a different name is no big deal under the circumstances. Whether they were "unverifiable" or "self-interested" is nothing more than one person's POV.
That said, the Moslanka article is not without problems, but problems cannot be solved in an atmosphere that has been supercharged with unnecessary blocks and threats of blocks. Any existing blocks should be lifted immediately.
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 gross distortion does not characterize what I have said.
That doesn't fly. It's inconsistent with NPOV VER NOR every core policy, none of them work without reliable sources.
NPOV is not a factor in this discussion. Some elements of the article obviously lack neutrality, but these can be cleared up without deleting the whole article if they are addressed with that in mind.
There is a difference between "verifiable" and "verified". If there is a reasonable chance that the verification can be found by another person, it is verifiable.
It is too early to tell whether original research is a factor here. What new theories are being propounded? You may not view the sources as reliable, or you may view them as self-serving, but they exist, and the material in the article is at least consistent with those sources. Thus they are not original.
Ec