| Revision as of 06:22, 11 December 2024 editJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,434 edits →Shakir Pichler: e← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:18, 11 December 2024 edit undoOwenX (talk | contribs)Administrators35,146 edits →Shakir Pichler: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| many new reliable sources have been added to sections to provide clear WP:SIGCOV but need to be structured properly into the References section rather than the further reading section with inline citations added to the biography section to them. Shakir Pichler shouldn't have to be punished with an AFK deletion/redirection decision due to the person editing the pages argumentative comments who will no longer be editing his page ever again. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | many new reliable sources have been added to sections to provide clear WP:SIGCOV but need to be structured properly into the References section rather than the further reading section with inline citations added to the biography section to them. Shakir Pichler shouldn't have to be punished with an AFK deletion/redirection decision due to the person editing the pages argumentative comments who will no longer be editing his page ever again. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | ||
| *'''Endorse''' and speedy close. Looks like {{U|Ponyo}} re-redirected and semi-protected recently after the IP had contravened {{U|OwenX}}'s closure of the deletion discussion as redirection. There appears to be conduct--COI and sockpuppetry--issues surrounding this, so I suggest we do absolutely nothing other than offer to educate the COI IP editor: either a clue will be obtained, or a block will, I suspect. ] (]) 06:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Endorse''' and speedy close. Looks like {{U|Ponyo}} re-redirected and semi-protected recently after the IP had contravened {{U|OwenX}}'s closure of the deletion discussion as redirection. There appears to be conduct--COI and sockpuppetry--issues surrounding this, so I suggest we do absolutely nothing other than offer to educate the COI IP editor: either a clue will be obtained, or a block will, I suspect. ] (]) 06:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:] have been made to educate the appellant, and ] issued to socks and IPs she's used. This is a SPA who doesn't care about policies or guidelines, and will continue her attempts to restore the article regardless of how we handle this. Technically, the appellant is still banned, but since I'm involved, it would be improper for me to block the IP in the midst of a DRV against me. ] ] 13:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:18, 11 December 2024
< 2024 December 10 Deletion review archives: 2024 December 2024 December 12 >11 December 2024
Shakir Pichler
many new reliable sources have been added to sections to provide clear WP:SIGCOV but need to be structured properly into the References section rather than the further reading section with inline citations added to the biography section to them. Shakir Pichler shouldn't have to be punished with an AFK deletion/redirection decision due to the person editing the pages argumentative comments who will no longer be editing his page ever again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.211.83.46 (talk • contribs)
- Endorse and speedy close. Looks like Ponyo re-redirected and semi-protected recently after the IP had contravened OwenX's closure of the deletion discussion as redirection. There appears to be conduct--COI and sockpuppetry--issues surrounding this, so I suggest we do absolutely nothing other than offer to educate the COI IP editor: either a clue will be obtained, or a block will, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Considerable efforts have been made to educate the appellant, and multiple blocks issued to socks and IPs she's used. This is a SPA who doesn't care about policies or guidelines, and will continue her attempts to restore the article regardless of how we handle this. Technically, the appellant is still banned, but since I'm involved, it would be improper for me to block the IP in the midst of a DRV against me. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)