Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:18, 10 September 2007

To leave me a message, click here. To email me, click here. If I leave you a message, I've watchlisted your talk page, so you can reply there or here as you prefer. If you leave me a message here, I'll most likely reply here.

Archives: /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5.

SevenOfDiamonds

SevenOfDiamonds has declared his retirement and posted links on my talk page to two evidence subpages he would like posted to the case. I advised him of their excessive length but he does not want to trim them. Will you post them to the case, please? Thanks. Thatcher131 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much Picaroon for your comments, they are most welcome. Unfortunately, I am now in a very busy period of my day to day work. However as soon as I get some free time I will replace some of those paragraphs into diffs. Unfortunately, the dispute between Shervink's group and I have been going on for a rather long time. I am hopping that the arbitration committee spends some times in exploring the truth of this case. Shervink and his group utilize a rather sophisticated method to supress the views of various minorities. To discover their tactic one needs to look at the talk pages of the users like (shervink, mehrshad123, Rayis, SG, Sina Kardar, Khorshid, and many more), as`well as their messages to each other, and the talk pages of the disputed articles. This is why I need some time to go through this material and organize them. All the best. Artaxerex 05:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whirlygig of Doom

Possibly not, but the clues I gave were fairly vague. It's not exactly top secret information anyway, though. The only possible use for it is vandalism, so we can always just block anyone who uses it. I like the cow. Neil ム 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Would it be possible to courtesy blank my Arbcom case pages? Not delete or hide, but just blank? Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, will do. Picaroon (t) 01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fabelurin Family - deleted

The fabelurin family was deleted because it was allegedly self promotional. Yes, I am a member of the Fabelurin family but I can assure you that this is not self-promotional by any means. What the Fabelurin stands for extends beyond my nuclear family. At the moment we are working on building the website for the nobel family and I know it may not rank with the Queen Elizabeths or the Murdochs or the Bill Gates at the moment but the family is important to people in the Ijesa land of Nigeria. How could the Owa-Obokun of Ijesaland be appropriate enough to be here but the Fabelurin family not.

I would appreciate it if you could please reconsider the decision you made in deleting the topic, if you want me to re-draft it, i would do so gladly.

Many thanks for this.

There are several issues with writing your family. First, the issue of neutrality comes up - please see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Next, there is the question of whether what you write is verifiable. This requires independent, reliable sources to source your information to. The threshold for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth, and this is often hard to accept when writing about your family, as surely you know more than what could ever be sourced. These issues are expanded on in the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.

If you feel that you can recreate the article while adhering to Misplaced Pages's rules, by making it neutral (so readers couldn't guess that a family member wrote it) and verifiable (so that what you say is cited to reliable sources), then you may go ahead and recreate it. The link to your own site may be used as an external link, but shouldn't be used to reference information. Tell me if you need any help with doing this. Picaroon (t) 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with uncivil user

Hello Picaroon:

User Corticopia is modifying several pages related to North America and imposing a particular geographic model to divide the continent in several articles. That's not the problem, the problem is that the modifications are controversial given the fact that several models exist and that the model he is trying to impose is not very used (undue weight).

The real problem is that he refuses to listen. I have tried to be reasonable with him, asking him to reach a consensus before making changes, but he just won't listen. He is doing this in several articles such as in Metropolis and List of American stock exchanges. I understand that the best practice to compromise in reaching a consensus is undo the changes and talk (best if done by the user that started the changes). So I restored the articles to their previous original status, in Metropolis that is alphabetical order. He just won't listen.

I don't want this to become an editwar because I have sadly been blocked before because of his fault. Please I need your help to make him understand. He is known for using profanity and being very uncivil , he has been reported for that several times, and he has been blocked several times for edit warring. I guess that's why he just won't listen to me, he's kinda extreme. Please mediate. Desperately, AlexCovarrubias 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments have been noted, P.; however, I will continue to mark edits as minor (as appropriate, of course) because they are minor in the grand scheme of things. As for other comments, well, no comment. Corticopia 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments have been noted, P., but I will continue to edit judiciously ... and that means marking my edits as I see fit. Edit comments elaborate further. I appreciate your willingness to 'mediate', but you should scrutinise the requestor (e.g., for more, glance at Talk:Mexico#Templates) before taking him at his word. Corticopia 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Picaroon and thanks for your fast answer. The revert I'm doing is not to my version, but to the original version in which North American cities are not divided into subregions, but in plain alphabetical order. See .

Several weeks ago I tried to introduce the most common division of North America, into Central America and the Caribbean, leaving Canada, Mexico and the US uncategorized, according to the most common descriptions of the North American continent. Then the article was restored to alphabetic order and it remained that way for a period of time. Then Corticopia introduced the new division (Northern and Middle America). I couldn't do anything about it because my PC was broken, so when I returned I tried to resolve this. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if memory serves, AC was blocked for a month. I am not a saint, but I defer to my prior comments. 'Commonality' is in the eye of the beholder, and alphabetising lists when further organisation (subcategorisation) is possible is both minor (IMO) and (when continually reverting) inane. Corticopia 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not when the vast majority of geographic publications and encyclopedias (such as Britannica) describe North America as comprising Greenland, Canada, Mexico, the US, Bermuda, St. Pierre and Miquelon AND Central America and the Caribbean. That clearly indicates the most common division of the continent, just into to well defined entities. AlexCovarrubias 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Time and again, we've been through this: numerous common publications also exclude Mexico from the definition for North America. (Note, I am not advocating for this.) Remember, you tried to remove this from 'North America' (or, more correctly, you removed a citation after claimed a reference was false and checking it), to no avail. I have no comment regarding other assertions. Corticopia 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made a proposal that neither of you will like but both of you will find to better than your opponent's preference at Talk:Metropolis#Undue weight in North America. Please comment. Picaroon (t) 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I've responded. Please don't forget the other article in which Corticopia started his editions. AlexCovarrubias 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Related things

Hello Picaroon. What do you think about this? It is highly suspicious to me. AlexCovarrubias 19:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Owdki

This user is requesting unblocking. You had blocked him as a checkuser request was pending but that request has now been declined by Deskana (saying that ArbCom should be able to handle its own checkusering). I feel somewhat uneasy about the idea that Owdki should remain blocked pending a checkuser to be run by ArbCom, when they're probably not aware that the user is blocked only because a checkuser is pending. I feel the user should either be unblocked, or the block should remain in place, but if the latter, a better reason is needed. I note that Owdki only posted on any of the arbcom pages after he/she was already accused of being a sockpuppet -- so no, he/she didn't jump into the arbitration out of nowhere, just into the discussion of a controversial article. Mangojuice 13:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER - sockpuppet

You probably know more about this than I, so all I can offer is my limited perspective. My gut feeling from working alongside and more frequently in opposition to Karen is that she is bona fide. I found her to be rough edged in many circumstances but a very good researcher. I had hoped that the WP experience might broaden her perspective. I was wondering if she could be allowed another opportunity, perhaps with a short ban from editing in the racial topics if such is practical. Perhaps I'm naive. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (I forgot to sign earlier).

Sorry, I read further into this and now agree that you were right and I was naive. --Kevin Murray 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, he did a pretty good job as sockpuppets go - obscuring IP data, changing demographic info, providing almost-reasonable explanations for odd familiarity with Misplaced Pages, etc. Picaroon (t) 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

Apologies for the oversight. I was editing the template from article Military of Cape Verde, hence the misunderstanding. --Asterion 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's happened before, no problem at all. In the case of links that shouldn't exist, like militaries of dependencies, redirects to either the dependency's article or the military of their country is the usual solution. Picaroon (t) 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

An Urgent Request

• Dear Picaroon, There is a real urgency for dealing with Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi pages. The shervink co-accusers of I are deleting the sourced materials and they do this despite my plea to refrain until the verdict of the ArbCom. In response Dfitzgerald, simply have asserted that the ArbCom decison is irrelevant and have deleted important sourced materials from Mohammad Reza Pahlavi page.

I'd like to know if it would be possible for you to lock the article after including all the deleted sourced materials (that can be balanced if anybody finds them biased). Regards Artaxerex 01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to have to decline for two reasons. One, the arbitration committee does not rule on content. It isn't going to solve the issues with the content of the shah's article. The point of arbitration is to deal with violations of policy by users that the arbitrators judge can not be solved any other way. In addition, since I'm clerking the case, I'd prefer not to become involved with the content dispute issue, even as a neutral admin. If there is edit-warring, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. Picaroon (t) 01:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New name

As requested, I've renamed you Picaroon on fr.wp. Regards, Blinking Spirit 20:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Picaroon for all your hard work and attention to detail on ArbCom. Fainites 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

You sent me a warning that I am a sockpuppet for User:Tejam. If someone else uses the common internet connection we have in our institute, I cannot help it. Please consider all factors before you reach a conclusion.Kumarrao 11:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting way to say "I'm sorry for the sockpuppetry which was proven by IP data and reaffirmed by editing habits, and thank you very much for not blocking my main account too." Picaroon (t) 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

--I made an appeal to you to look into my concerns by citing one possibility. You have interpreted that as a reality. I sincerely state that I am not at all a sock puppet for User:Tejam. Please see his contributions. It seems he/she started with editing articles on Andhra, Kapu (caste) etc. He got into editing Chalukya only recently, that too after I put a message in his talk page to protect Telugu-related articles, which was attempted. How else can I convince you? Please absolve me of this charge. Kumarrao 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser has stated that you two are the same user based on IP evidence. The fact that Tejam sprang out of ten days inactivity to revert to your preferred version on Chalukya dynasty, Kakatiya dynasty, and Bhattiprolu confirms the technical finding, as does your writing style and and your frequent lack of a space between the final period and your signature. It isn't a big deal, I'm not even going to ask you to admit to it, but please don't bother with any more denials. Picaroon (t) 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Updating blocks

MarkWood is still down as running 3 of DPetersons socks on his user/talkpage, whereas DPeterson ran all 5 of them. Just thought I 'd mention it in case it needs updating. Fainites 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page to prevent further confusion, thanks for reminding me. Picaroon (t) 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Sure, I can make User space page. --David Shankbone 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Occupations of Latvia

RE: I'm going to have to agree with Thatcher that the addition of that picture was not helpful, which I think you agreed to in your latest post to Thatcher's talk page. Are there any active discussions on Talk:Occupations of Latvia which you think should be removed as a misuse of the talk page for political commentary? If so, or if any start in the future, you can point me to them and I'll see if they're worth blanking or archiving so as to get the discussion back on track. Picaroon (t) 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Picaroon! Although the question here was not about removing or blanking anything but just ending the political debates over there and concentrating the efforts on citing reliable sources only and editing the article accordingly. Now, I've slammed a similar troll tag on Talk:Occupation_of_Baltic_states#NPOV.2FPOV long time ago and things cooled down immediately and the article and the talk page have been stable ever since.. Therefore I have to preserve a different opinion here regarding "the addition of that picture was not helpful" since the practical example speaks of exact opposite. Now, well, let’s see how it turns out at Talk:Occupations of Latvia. But in case it ends up to be a mess again like the history on the talk page shows, any help to cool things down is going to be appreciated. Thanks!--Termer 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I have not left. I have just taken a step back, why add content that may be removed on cherry-picked evidence? I would like to help the project, however people chasing after their past demons is hindering that process. I hope Arbcom decides quickly so I know if this project is serious about its attempt to build an encyclopedia and content, or if it is really just a social experiment in politics. Considering MONGO has not presented any evidence of me being disruptive. And I have refuted all of his "evidence" of me being a sockpuppet. I am optimistic that a fair panel would see the evidence for what it is, a clear case of confirmation bias. You really should refrain from coaching people considering you are suppose to be neutral. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I put myself in MONGO's shoes and gave him advice on how to proceed. "Coaching" him, as you call it, involved making the assumption that you are a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs), because this is obviously what MONGO thinks. I don't see how doing this compromised my neutrality. My advice to you is to continue to refute the evidence of sockpuppetry, and to show that you have been a productive editor during your time here. Picaroon (t) 17:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see how this is an appropriate edit for an ArbCom clerk to make. By appearing to not consider all the evidence presented and by treating the case as open and shut it may look like you are trying to pre-empt the arbitrators. Catchpole 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the misconception that Seven had left when I made that suggestion to MONGO. As I explained above, I was telling him how he could proceed (he had not yet edited the /Workshop, even though he had presented his evidence several days earlier). How is my trying to get the case moving by nudging MONGO to make some proposals inappropriate? Picaroon (t) 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nudging MONGO isn't a prolem, it's the content and tone of the nudge. I was under the impression that clerks should strive to remain neutral in cases they are involved with. Catchpole 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting someone to do something sometimes involves an agreeable attitude, no? Picaroon (t) 18:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

uncharitable

your block was, especially after detecting that copyvio. Here's another one for you to block. Btw, why did you surreptitiously remove my comment on Yellow Monkey? 59.91.254.42 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

More updating

Don't mean to be officious, but look! Fainites 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, that fixed too. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

THF-DavidShankBone

Am I permitted to submit the same evidence, or am I expected to present something new? smb 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Same evidence as what? Picaroon (t) 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. I've done it. Thankyou. smb 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Funkynusayri

In general I agree that it is not good practice to make edits to other user's comments and I generally refrain from it. However if a user is being graphic or is using language that is inflammatory, I may take the liberty to do so. In this case I disagree with you. While wikipedia is not censored, innappropriate use of the n word ,especially outside the context of the article, is not good practice. He needlessly mentions it five times. This is clearly trying to rub it in than making any comments about article. WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments states Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages. Muntuwandi 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes his words are gratuitous. He keeps repeating that there is an actual n word article, when in fact I first brought up the subject of the term with a link to the article. So he knows that everyone else knows that the article exists. Needlessly repeating that there is such an article is just trying to find a creative way to use the term, while appearing to be making a point. Misplaced Pages allows a lot of freedom so I don't expect any action will be taken against him, but it is plain to see that he is just being gratuitous. This type of behavior just contributes to a hostile environment on the talk pages. Muntuwandi 19:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia petition

Geez, thank you for deletiong my page. That was the last page I will ever make, beacuse my Misplaced Pages career is over. --Alien joe 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pavarotti.jpg

Thank you for removing this image from the mainpage. I (and I'm sure many other people) appreciate it. --Pixelface 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Picaroon (t) 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stub category

Thanks for that. I've listed it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, which is where odd stub types created from outside WP:WSS usually go. Actually, on second thoughts, I'll take it straight to Misplaced Pages;Stub types for deletion, since there are problems with it that will need fixing and renaming (though probably not actually deleting). Grutness...wha? 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francisco Barreto, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 08:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Diff

Oh yeah, sorry about that. I have now provided the diff I originally intended to provide. Take care, Sebi 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes

With regards to edit summaries like this, could you please consider using "apostrophe misuse" as opposed to "apostrophe abuse"? I'm sure 95% of editors wouldn't care, but for the 5% that would, removing a lone apostrophe with that edit summary could be construed as an unnecessary slight. Picaroon (t) 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Picaroon!

Thanks for your note. No, I will not consider changing the edit summary. It's the same edit summary I've been using since early 2006, and it is correct. Abuse means "to use wrongly or improperly" which is what this is. There are 33,200 google hits for "Apostrophe abuse". It's a perfectly acceptable expression. There are 10,000 articles on Misplaced Pages right now with incorrect usage of "it's" and there is no way to use a fully automated bot to correct it. If I don't do it, it doesn't get done. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair user images in user-space

I am doing significant edits in my userspace which I am then planning to move into the mainspace, therefore is it OK to leave the image in? Thanks, OK, I understand now. Davnel03 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Weissundblau

Replied at my talk. Raymond Arritt 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

I take heed to your concern and agree that an apology may be in order; however, such an apology would be in vain since the same antics that I recently lashed out at will persist. Alternately I'll just refrain from such rash comments. Just a bit perturbed by some of the blatant and passive racism/ethnic bias rampant on wikipedia, as it is an endless task to repel. Admins do nothing but suggest that we "assume good faith", even when motivations inferred from repeated patterns are observed. That was a way of letting off steam, but it won't happen again as I agree, it is inappropriate to address in this environment, even if true. Thanx for catching that and speaking out on it.Taharqa 20:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to thank you for your neutrality and I actually just noticed what you edited out and see how a few of those statements could have been problematic. Good job with refining the info and reflecting accurately the implications. Again, I will continue to watch my attitude and tone when responding to such occurrences, since sometimes I do react somewhat inappropriately. Peace..Taharqa 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can he address me, but I cannot respond?

Why is a sysop allowed to make comments toward me without my being allowed a response? Why can't I just have my response if someone directs something toward me? How is this right or fair? Italia 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing others talk page comments

this edit is kind of obnoxious, removing someone elses talk page comment and suggesting they go do something useful. Rather poor behavior, especially for an admin. They have the right to express their opinion on the main page contents, thats what talk pages are for. Russeasby 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. what I wrote at talk:main page was relevant on-topic and at the right the place. Please do not remove it. I am a long-time contributor. Andries 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Andries is not expressing his opinion on the main page contents, he is trolling. Talk pages are for constructive contributions, not complaining about the results of arbitration cases. No one has the right to be disruptive, not even a "long-time contributor". Picaroon (t) 23:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a long time-contributor and am disappointed in Misplaced Pages and hence do not want to be thanked by Misplaced Pages. Please remove that statement from the main page. Andries 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are disappointed in Misplaced Pages, leave and start a fork. Picaroon (t) 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So only Wipedia fans are allowed to make comments? Not the people who are disappointed. I do not agree with this kind of reasoning and it sound quite cult-like. Andries 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal your topic ban, you may make a request of the arbitration committee. Complaining about not wanting to be thanked for your edits on Talk:Main Page is not helpful and you know it. Picaroon (t) 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was and am aware that my sincere request was unlikely to be fulfilled, but I do think I made a constructive attempt to improve neutrality and fairness. Andries 23:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a troll, but a long-time contributor. From Internet trolling "An indignant user who has had a previous normal relationship with the group is not a troll, even if the user uses methods of attack that are characteristic of a troll attack." Andries 23:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of removed trolling

I'm just letting you know that User:Xihr has been reverting your edits. Epbr123 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've explained my removals and asked him to revert himself. (Header added by me, and may not accurately reflect Epbr's opinions). Picaroon (t) 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I would like to hear your justification for striking out excising votes at AfDs, since it is not your place to remove votes en masse, despite your belief that it is "trolling". If a vote is trolling, it must be noted on the page, so that the closing admin can take all votes into consideration. Do remember that the articles for deletion process isn't voting, so quality comments are given better weight than those without quality. I have since reverted your changes, since it is not your place, or mine, to deny anyone's vote for any reason. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second Joe's comments - outright removal of comments or AFD !vote statements without clear evidence that they were made by a banned user is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Your having done so without clear evidence that they fell under the "banned user" exception puts this into the general category of violation of Misplaced Pages rules for which blocking may be applied.

I strongly urge you to explain what exactly you were doing and why. I do not think you will be blocked or anything worse than clearly warned if you've stopped and do cooperate by explaining, even if the explanation indicates a misunderstanding of policy or procedure. But you do need to explain.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It isn't your place to decide which votes are important, that's left to the closing admin. Please explain yourself. (If you acted in good faith, fine. But please note that under WP:AFD, only clear personal attacks may be removed, other reverts would be construed as vandalism). --Bfigura 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now this if funny. The user has admitted to trolling, but you're saying since he isn't banned I'm not allowed to remove his comments? That is what we call wikilawyering, and I direct you three to Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. My actions improved Misplaced Pages, and I challenge any of you to say removing what the user himself admitted to be trolling did not improve Misplaced Pages. Picaroon (t) 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two very serious problems with that.

One, it creates an impression that WP admins have free reign to suppress merely annoying speech. Our relationship between admins and users is already strained by admins using powers too freely at times; this (though it didn't involve any) doesn't help. AFD is one of the areas we encourage everyone to have a say, even if some of the things they say are enthusiastic, annoying, questionable, etc. Stomping on anything there has to be done for the strongest of reasons and most delicately if at all.

Two, you reverted a whole series of !Votes, of which only two failed to state a reason to keep ( and "Don't know why"). Even if those had been trolling, the other 4 you reverted stated that the keep reason was WP:PORNBIO, which rises to the level of a legitimate comment/!Vote even if the user's being a little disruptive. If they're being a little disruptive the approved remedy is to tag their !vote with a comment. Even a slightly trolling user may make legitimate comments in the process.

Even if they were trolling, precedent and the AFD rules specify that you fix it by commenting to the closing admin (or the troller), not delete the troll.

Using IAR to stomp on people is unacceptable abuse of IAR. The WP policies exist muchly to protect people from admins and set up a framework in which admin powers and user interactions proceed in a smooth and friendly manner. Taking a very moderate troll and removing it like that runs the risk of a major policy level blowup.

Simply ignoring the troll would have been perfectly acceptable here; it didn't really do any damage. Putting in comments to the troller, others, and/or closing admin would have been fine too. Warning the user on his/her talk page was good. This actual deletion was a policy violation for no good reason. If you can safely leave a situation alone without any further damage being done, then applying force to it is the wrong solution.

This was disproportionate as a response to his trivial provocations, and caused all of us to come here and complain and you to have to defend your actions. Was it worth it? Was it even necessary?

Please don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD is one of the areas we encourage everyone to have a say – I doubt that, considering recent events. What's the difference between removing another's comment and striking it? Epbr123 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Striking does not remove the text - it indicates that someone has felt the need to mark it out, but anyone can still read it and tell that it was there. In the case of double-voting, or identified sockpuppet votes, that's the preferred solution. It's not like simply removing it at all. Georgewilliamherbert 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A negligible difference. A closing admin would generally ignore any stricken comments, making it akin to being removed altogether. Epbr123 23:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not negligible, because users are aware that it's still there and can review it if they want. A closing admin may for example chose to take it into consideration even if someone struck it. And nobody can be accused of censorship - the words are still there. For this last "for appearances sake avoiding censorship" reason alone it's an important difference. Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An important difference. Since the closing admin would get to see the vote in the first place. Closing admins do not sift through page histories for removed votes, something I suspect that even you know. Since Picaroon was not the closing admin, he did not have the right to make the choices of the closing administrator for these AfDs. Again, you fail to understand the policies of Misplaced Pages and the reasons why the process behind them exists. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You two are entitled your opinion. Not keen on the personal attack though, Beaudoin. Epbr123 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)