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.
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.