This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
Wikimedia Foundation
Talk to the Puppy To leave a message on this page, click here.
If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
Thank you, Marnette! I should caution you against outing editors, even by linking to their photographs, though! (I think I recognize that one....) :-D KillerChihuahua16:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must have seen your name in some old RfC/RfAs, as your username certainly has a good impression on me. Have you tried to delete the main page? That might have impressed me. I have thought about moving it, as well as ANI. —usernamekiran(talk)14:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heavens - so great to see you KC. Sorry to hear you had health issues, hopefully very distant in the rear view mirror. Bow to the Wow and welcome back. — Ched (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks muchly, Ched! Everything stayed calm and reasonable whilst I was away, yes? No huge arbcom cases, no overreach by the WMF, no vandalism? Good, good. Wait, what? Dang. Well, well. Who'd have thunk? KillerChihuahua16:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was! I don't know that I even expected to come back. It's been a rough several years, what can I say? Cancer, several surgeries, divorce, relocation, job hunting, etc. etc. Life got complicated. I'm so pleased you're still here, and have fond enough memories of me that you're happy to see me back! KillerChihuahua00:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of rounding up the plushies and putting them all here, where they can keep each other company. Chihuahuas are not known for being herd dogs, but in extreme circumstances, they can rise to the occasion. KillerChihuahua19:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Clint Pulver page
KillerChihuahua, let me apologize in advance, I'm not well versed in how to make comments on talk pages like this and tag myself and my articles appropriately. I'll do my best.
You deleted the page Clint Pulver earlier today, citing G11. It must have gone up shortly before that as a nomination for speedy deletion, but it was certainly "speedily deleted" as I didn't have a chance to look at it before you deleted. So I read through the link you have here on your talk page ("please read this before posting here." and went back over what G11 is. I could really use your advice as I tried to make the article as neutral as possible and used multiple objective citations for nearly every sentence included in the article. I'd love to be able to fix whatever I did wrong and get the article back up. Please advise. Cheers,
tbc32 15:44, 16 September 2019
Ok. The article has been a bit of a problem since it's inception. It was moved from mainspace to draft as Not Ready For Mainspace, and then on 1 July 2019 was moved back to article space as Issues Addressed - then speedied today. I am willing to undelete and move back into draft space, preferably in your userspace, if you're willing to work on it some more. Here is the issue - what's he notable for? You literally cannot tell from the article. There is a LOT of fluff in the article. It needs to be trimmed, and the more hagiographic bits removed outright, the actual biographical details rephrased. It may still get deleted - but it would stand a better chance if it were less advert and more even handed, and made clear why we even have an article on him in the first place. Does that make sense, or do you want detailed rundown of each issue? KillerChihuahua23:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for revisiting this. In July I did address the issues so I was surprised to see the article put back up for speedy deletion. I am happy to continue working on the article to improve it. I think my challenge with establishing notability is that the industry of "public speaking" (where Pulver is a leading influencer right now) may not be regarded by the Wikipedia community as notable. That withstanding, I believe Pulver meets notability as a result of founding the Green Man group, for his work as a professional drummer, and for his acting roles. I don't think any of those accomplishments are as notable as the work he is doing as a public speaker, but the criteria for notability as a speaker would probably fall under WP:AUTHOR, "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." He meets this criteria through citations on podcasts (the preferred news medium in the speaking industry), evidenced by many of the citations which are podcast interview transcripts. I've been working on several articles about notable public speakers but have this same issue across the board, that the credibility of podcast interviews are low because such interviews are not the traditional "news" medium used for citations on Wikipedia (even if they are way more credible than a blog post or crappy news publication). Any advice on what I can/should do to establish credibility for speakers when most of the news about them are released in audio form? tbc32 06:44, 17 September 2019
Thank you! We certainly tried. He was highly resistant to clue, sadly. Hopefully he'll calm down on his enforced break and come back with a better attitude. KillerChihuahua23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NEITHER of you is vandalizing. STOP accusing an editor with whom you are having a content dispute of vandalism!!! See WP:NOTV. READ it. Commit it to memory. And then go study WP:DR. Puppy has spoken, this had better be the last damn time I have to explain that an edit war, which IS what you're doing, can get you blocked, but accusing the other editor of vandalism will NOT help your case. Do you understand? KillerChihuahua14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heated discussions are best enjoyed with a heated beverage; you are not at fault (well, except for being wrong about the AIV/spam thing, but this place is an arcane bewildertempest of bureaucracy, and we all get little things like that confused from time to time!) so relax and enjoy a nice cup of tea. (*slides teacup down admin lounge bar like an old-timey cowboy) Yunshui雲水14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in that discussion: Here is the thing. I have known a number of editors who started out exactly like this. One issue editors, often spamming with the same link to multiple articles, the "Warrell vandal" comes to mind. Instead of immediately blocking, we kept reaching out to him, explaining NPOV and NOT. He became a valuable contributor. Wikipedia is in decline. The number of editors and admins has dropped precipitously. Biting newbies is a primary reason people don't become contributors. Will I have to indef Harold? Probably. But I'm NOT going to do that first thing. I'm going to at least try to get him to understand and follow policy. I care more about Wikipedia as a whole than I do about smashing newbies with my banhammer just because they're not helpful at first. I understand current terms; you don't need to insult and pretend to explain things to senile old timer me. It isn't necessary nor helpful. I'm not "wrong", thank you so much for your help; I'm just not a fucking asshole who blocks everybody on sight if I think they might be able to learn to be a helpful contributor. Your opinion and approach may vary, that's fine. Just because I don't immediately block all new editors who fuck up, does not mean I'm "wrong" or "confused". KillerChihuahua14:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I apologise, that was intended entirely as a, "hey, I see you're getting dragged over the coals a bit, just letting you know that I agree with your position and sympathise", not in any way an attempt to passive-aggressively teach you to suck eggs. It's clearly come across the wrong way and I'm profoundly sorry; my intention was to diffuse the situation and hopefully give you a smile, not escalate it and piss you off. Your administrative work is beyond reproach and I fully concur with your reasoning above; I really wasn't trying to criticise. Yunshui雲水15:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no worries. "Confused" on top of Prax telling me I didn't understand "current" terms just struck me as painting me as a semi-senile incompetent. I do appreciate that it's a cuppa tea template, which is always a friendly gesture. I just think this project is very nasty to new users, and it's harmful. If an editor is a BV, I'll indef immediately. But if it looks like they mean well, even if they're initially only posting the same same site (often their own), then I think we should at least make the attempt. AGF, what ever happened to AGF???? Pretty sure that hasn't been deprecated. But far too many editors act like it's optional for newbies and especially IPs. They get some stars for vandal fighting, and newbies are just notches on their belt. They never try to retain them. It doesn't even occur to them. KillerChihuahua15:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this conversation with some interest, and I feel I should point out that there are hundreds of accounts created every day simply to promote links to other websites. Many of them are real people just trying to promote their own agendas, but many of them are spambots. Wikipedia is the fifth-most popular website in the world, and on the first page of Google searches for nearly every search for a product, company, or person. Fighting spam on Wikipedia is an arduous task, and people who have the stamina and the expertise to find these spammers and report them are people to be valued and encouraged. You say Wikipedia is in decline - I'm not sure that's true, but spam is probably its biggest threat. – bradv🍁15:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you feel the need to explain that? Who in this discussion do you feel is ignorant of that? I'm about done being patronized on my own talk page. KillerChihuahua15:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this was more patronizing than intended. I'm just trying to stand up for one of our most prolific spamfighters. – bradv🍁15:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has attacked her, not here or on her talk page, and since your method of defending her involved absolutely nothing positive about her - actually nothing about her at all! - but rather a condescending explanation of how bad spam is, I'm missing how your explanation is accurate. Your assertion that fighting spam is hard and we should value and encourage spamfighters is mildly relevant, as is your opinion (with which I disagree, btw) that spam and vandalism are a greater cause of the decline of editors and admins on Wikipedia; you could have said that without the preface of explaining spam to me. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua15:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIV
Just saw your declines on a series of half-baked reports. One one hand, I don't want to be bitey and discourage people from helping fight vandalism, but jeesh, lots of people not following directions. Seems that it's a pretty small of regulars who use the board properly. The other type of report I see very frequently on AIV is "vandals" who are making small tweaks on articles pertaining to (1) wrestling (2) cartoons (3) TV/radio stations, being tagged as "disruptive." Not being well-versed in any of those topics, it's difficult to tell if it really is disruption or just a content dispute between people who are extremely passionate about those topics. Life is hard. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thank you, I was feeling rather alone here. I was genuinely surprised at the number of bad reports; then there was also a questionable one (another admin has since indeffed, so it's moot so far as that goes) where I thought the spam was borderline and the editor might become productive if not met with nothing but hostility rather than reached out to. I've now been told I'm senile, ignorant, confused, and wrong - all according to those who wish to block first, ask questions never. :-/ KillerChihuahua15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also noticed you declining some reports at AIV, with good feedback given. I have observed lately an increase in reports at both AIV and UAA that are not consistent with our current guidelines and it's nice to see someone giving a little pushback where appropriate. So I just wanted to say I support you in this regard. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am trying to explain why I'm declining, and pointing the reporting editors in the right direction. AIV is not the place for content dispute resolution or reporting edit warring. KillerChihuahua16:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please add myself to the list of sycophantic administrators saying "You are doing a great job, Killer"? A truly astonishing proportion of editors seem totally unable to understand that "vandalism" doesn't mean "anything at all that I don't agree with", and it's good that someone is willing to say "no". Also, your comment "the spam was borderline and the editor might become productive if not met with nothing but hostility rather than reached out to" touches on a point which I feel quite strongly about. I have always thought that 99% of editors blocked immediately for "spam" are not spammers at all, but good faith editors who simply don't yet know what is acceptable, so we should give them a friendly message explaining the situation, and block them only if they continue after that. Unfortunately, when I first became an administrator I found that following that policy far more often than not just meant that another administrator blocked them, and also gave a totally inappropriate and unhelpful block message, so I reluctantly started blocking the editors myself, so that at least they would get what I thought was a not-too-bad block message. However, I don't always do that: quite often I give a friendly message instead, and often the editor gets blocked anyway, sometimes not.
Hey, I wrote that message just on the basis of reading this talk page section, but now I've seen the one above too, and there's a lot more there relevant to what I said. I thoroughly agree with you in that section. I also disagree with the statement "many of them are spambots". A small minority of them are spambots, and those, yes, I block on sight, without any compunction, but that doesn't justify presuming that everyone who comes here and makes a promotional edit is an unrepentant spammer. Most of them aren't. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yes! Much too familiar with that experience, alas. Good to confirm that we're still out there, trying to AGF and be decent humans. It is nice to know not all remaining Admins have subscribed to the "they're all vandals, kill them with fire" attitude. :-D KillerChihuahua23:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of "Incentive Solutions" Page
Hello - just looking for some additional guidance/feedback regarding the draft article "Incentive Solutions," which you speedily deleted, citing G11 - unambiguous advertising or promotion. I look forward to making the changes in violation of this criteria. Thank you in advance! Leslie Wells (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I take a little break, and look who pops out of the woodwork. I gather you got your bit back. It's really good to see you active, again. Now, I need to spend some time in here. - Donald Albury21:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Begoon16:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
that was me trying to undo the first page move, and accidentally running into another admin doing the same thing. I've speedied the Kakooskavin article, so that's done now. I appreciate that you're trying to help, but did you even look at my page? Had you done so, you would have realized the move was accidental. Have you ever read WP:BITE? I suggest you might want to do that, to avoid treating newbies with as much callous disregard for courtesy and intentions as you have me. KillerChihuahua16:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, that's an automatic message which, if you hadn't been interfering in the vandalism I was trying to fix without understanding what was going on, would have gone to the now blocked vandal. WP:BITE, my ass. Once you've worked it all out and decide to apologise you know where my talk page is. smh... --Begoon16:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No interest biting in your ass, thank you - thanks for showing it off to me. Clearly you are all knowing and perfect, and being rude to me because I fat fingered something is absolutely not only the correct approach, it's something you are proud of. Barnstar of bitable ass? So glad there is perfection walking among us. I'll try not to get in your way, as you alone can fix the encyclopedia, and you never err. KillerChihuahua16:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rude? Because of course you weren't? Jeez. Step back and think about it. You tore me off a strip, wrongly, pointed me at WP:BITE as though I was a noob, lectured me, all without any basis. Now you're upset that pissed me off and I said so? Perhaps you should take your return to the tools more slowly. Yes, confusion happens, but it wasn't me who started the over-reactions, nor do I regret pulling you up for it. In fact "Have you ever read WP:BITE? I suggest you might want to do that, to avoid treating newbies with as much callous disregard for courtesy and intentions as you have me." turns out to apply perfectly to you, here, ironically. Have a nice day. --Begoon16:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You paste a vandalism warning on my page, yeah I am going to ask if you've read BITE. Since I didn't use my admin tools in this anywhere except to speedy the article, your telling me to stop using my tools is a bit ironic. "It wasn't me who started it" is both immature and inaccurate, not sure where you think that's going to go. And I have no idea what the phrase "pulling you up for it" even means. KillerChihuahua17:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Pulling you up for it" means telling you where to get off for accusing me of WP:BITE. I actually had no idea that Twinkle had sent that vandalism message to you instead of the vandal until you posted on my talk page. It's unfortunate, but there was nothing pro-active in that message and I certainly didn't "paste" anything anywhere. It seems to have happened because I speedied a page you had created - but I had no reason to suspect anyone but the vandal would have done that. I probably would have been as surprised as you were to receive it, but I like to think I'd have been smart enough to work out it hadn't been done deliberately.
And now I'm "immature"? Look - here's the way I see it: for obscure and unfortunate reasons, that message ended up here. You assumed there had been something active about it and gave me a condescending lecture. I didn't like that so gave you one back. Now I'm very bored with the whole thing, so if it makes you feel better I'm sorry you thought I was rude, but, honestly, you do need to look at how you jumped up and down defensively too - I'll forget all about this in half an hour - not everybody would. --Begoon17:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh cool, then I can forget about it too. Moving on, you get barnstar of bitable ass + bragging about letting things be bygones, hopefully we're all done now. KillerChihuahua17:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no - lol - since it seems we both like "the last word" and are neither of us short of a "smart" retort - I think it would be funnier if I reply one last time. I'm done now, yes. --Begoon17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Just a quick reminder, Begoon when you use automated tools, you're responsible for the edits they make. "Oops, sorry, my bad" would have been more than enough. Also keep in mind that even on Twinkle, you aren't supposed to use rollback on good-faith edits, like you did here. Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick reminder, Guettarda, that I'm well aware of my responsibility, and, had I had time to review my contributions and realise what had happened before getting my throat leaped down, "Oops, sorry, my bad" would have been exactly my response. I'll also continue to remove messages I'm replying to from my own talk page how I like, thank you, particularly "talkback notes" which I've "talked back" to. --Begoon17:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that recent actions merit an ANI report, and I'm hesitant to engage further than I already have here given the recent history. BigDWiki is continuing to make axe-grinding sorts of edits using sources that clearly don't meet WP:RS guidelines; see also here; thankfully someone else has already stepped in to that dispute. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamieTalk22:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
just wanted to checkin with you on the deletion of my recreation of Instana. Did you read my objection against the speedy deletion? As I pointed out the deletion vote 9 months ago was not unanimous. There were several votes to keep it.
Also the page content has been significantly extended. Thirdly the expanded contents, as well as the inherent notability should at least have a regular discussion for deletion. Lastly, locking a page which was recreated after 9 months is not really appropriate, right? FabianLange (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take this to Request for Undelete. I am more than happy to accede to the will of my fellow editors; I scanned the article and it appeared to me to be a slightly padded repeat of the deleted article. If others disagree, I'll offer no objections at all. KillerChihuahua14:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you're right. I'm digging through contributions of a pair of edit warriors who came to AN right now, sorry! Please be patient and as soon as I'm done there I'll take a harder look at your article. Thanks in advance for your kind forbearance! Busy puppy. KillerChihuahua14:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for waiting. Ok, the articles ARE mostly identical. The new version has the following added:
added text
Instana is a remote company with employees around the world, but also has significant offices in Chicago IL, San Francisco CA, Austin TX, Solingen, Munich and Novi Sad.
Product
The Instana product offers unified end-to-end monitoring capabilities. It automatically brings together data from servers, databases, applications, tools and services, from legacy monoliths and modern containerized microservice stacks, to present a unified view of the applications and provides a holistic view in the cloud or on-premises.[7]
One of Instana's core features is fully automatic monitoring of microservice applications, such as the ones deployed in Kubernetes or Cloud Foundry and its distributed tracing works with all major programming languages and supports the OpenTracing[8], OpenCensus, OpenTelemetry and W3C Trace Context standards. It includes metric based IT infrastructure monitoring, distributed tracing based application performance monitoring, end user monitoring, container monitoring, database monitoring, serverless service monitoring, automated root cause analysis and alerting functionality. The product is offered as a SaaS solution and as an on-premises installation. It can be purchased directly from Instana, from channel partners or from online marketplaces like Amazon. It is licensed by number of hosts under monitoring.
None of this establishes the company's notability. The original article was rejected twice at AFC, then created anyway, then deleted due to not meeting notability. The rest of the article is identical to the deleted version, and the added text is advertising, basically. So yes, this is the same problem as before, the article has been created three times now (not one) and deleted every time. KillerChihuahua15:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you looking into this in more detail, but you are ignoring the fact that the contents of the article does not need to meet the notability threshold, but the company itself. Time has passed, right? The AfC was in 2017, and it was controversial at that time already, since one particular editor was just voting against the article and not helping in the creation (as is the intention of AfC), then after a year in late 2018, the page was deleted, with effectively a 3:2 vote. Now 9 months later you are deleting it under G4. But G4 does not apply to "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". I ask for the reason for the deletion to be re-examined. Please let me know if you still stand by your decision that this is a valid Speedy Deletion, so that I can move on with my appeal to Wikipedia:Deletion_reviewFabianLange (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring a damn thing, "older" doesn't mean "more notable" and you have not shown the company to be notable. Not in the "new version" of the article, not here. KillerChihuahua15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not that "old" = "notable", but a deletion discussion that focused on notability cannot cover 2019 facts when it was run in 2018, right? if you think it does not pass notability, please restore it, mark it for deletion, and have a new discussion, on new content and new 2019 facts. This is not a page that was created 20 times a months. we are talking 3 times in three years. FabianLange (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your 2019 fact that establishes notability? What event occurred that establishes the company as notable? What newsworthy event, what ground breaking strides, what action that was covered in multiple major news sources? If such an item exists, you failed to place it in the article. KillerChihuahua15:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out WP:ARTN says that the contents of the article are not to be used to determine the notability of the subject but third party sources. You are right that I failed to provide them, but that alone does not justify deletion, let alone speedy deletion. WP:NTEMP also explicitly says that articles may be recreated when new evidence supports its existence. You have not considered the possibility of new evidence. Again, I request that you either undelete or unprotect the page. I am willing to work with you or any other interested editors to make the page better. FabianLange (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you're missing the point profoundly. Where. Is. Your. New. Evidence. Put it here. Right here. On my talk page. Because it certainly wasn't on the article page. KillerChihuahua15:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am appealing the speedy deletion here. This is not the place to argue notability. You have violated the rules for speedy deletion. Thats ok, everybody can make mistakes. As you pointed out you didn't even read it, and you were thinking about an edit war. The speedy deletion was incorrect. It doesn’t matter if you consider it notable or not. But no problem. I will bring it up on Wikipedia:Deletion_review. FabianLange (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument for undeletion is that the company is now notable. Show me. Or I don't undelete. It's really very simple. The article made no claims of notability above what was in the original article, which was deleted for failing notability. If you don't have something, there is no reason for me to undelete. Either show me something to support your claim, or stop this endless posting asking me to undelete. KillerChihuahua16:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try to engage the editor during their block - not to the point of harassment, but a simple "can we discuss this?" kind of thing on their talk page. They may be immune to clue, but we can at least try. If the behavior begins again after the block expires, take it to AN3 again, and mention that this is a repeat visitor to that page. (with a link) Good luck. KillerChihuahua17:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
your assistance please...
I saw your question.
Fram's claim that he has left me alone? Incorrect. He has needled me enough to let me know I am on his Nixonian list. The most recent, prior to [3]
was [4] Geo Swan should have been banned from BLPs years and years ago. This one was far from the worst (borderline speedy, but I certainly would have voted for deletion at AfD anyway). Things like User:Geo Swan/Fa‘iz al-Shanbari (from 2009) or User:Geo Swan/Hesham Mohamed Hussain and User:Geo Swan/Mohammed Quayyum Khan (from 2012) should not remain in userspace indefinitely, and have no chance of becoming articles anyway, so a major cleanup of Geo Swan's userspace seems necessary.
In the fall of 2010 Fram and I had had very little interaction. He left what looked like a good faith
suggestion I consider deleting some userspace pages. That is how I treated it. I spent a long time looking at. Hours? All morning, all afternoon, all day? I can't remember now. But I looked at every page he listed, and tried to figure out what triggered his concern.
For some pages I thought triggered his concern because he couldn't understand what they were for. So I spent time, considerable time, trying to explain how I was using them. That turned out to be an enormous mistake.
For some I thought his concerns were misplaced.
Finally, in some instances, I thought I saw what triggered his concern, and I made edits to fix them.
Fram wasn't joking. He soon proceeded to return to my contributions, and nominate userspace pages, and articles, at a far greater pace than anyone could reasonably be expected to respond to. This first intense focus on me lasted for months. At least half a dozen of his fellow administrators warned him that his focus on me gave the strong appearance of malice.
Fram blew them all off.
It seemed to me, at the time, that if Fram had not been an administrator, and he ignored just a couple of administrator warnings, he would have found himself issued a 24, 48, or 72 hour block. And if, after that block, he had returned to giving the appearance of a focus triggered by malice, he would have been issued longer and longer blocks, right up to indefinite.
If Fram returns to being an administrator, will he be an "unblockable" again?
Finally, can I ask you to email me a deleted file? Could you email me the former contents of User:Geo Swan/Eyad Alrababah? It is the page the other administrator deleted, and then asked for Fram's support, when I asked him to email it to me.
Fram has made it clear he doesn't want you on his talk page, yet you posted there twice three times, in quick succession. I suggest you avoid doing so, as it is you're hardly in a position to cast aspersions. If an editor states they want to avoid contact, and you post on their page, you can hardly expect them to be kindly disposed towards you. KillerChihuahua17:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Drmies is the admin who deleted the page as a BLP violation/attack page, I suggest you approach him first, and make your case for why he should send you the deleted page. KillerChihuahua17:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Killer, GeoSwan is sometimes criticized for writing up BLPs with little or no sourcing. This is one of those cases, where we have a completely non-notable person (who was accused of something and then cleared) whose biography has a strong BLP1E flavor to it, but in addition it has a ton of content about a previous misdemeanor and all the accusations that were leveled at him, which resulted in his eviction on the rather vague conviction of "playing a role in identity theft". The sourcing is minimal: a few newspaper articles, a single mention in one book, and a few mentions in a rather sensationalist book which seems to blow up his role far beyond what was proven in court. So, the article as a whole is pretty much an attack page, in blowing this out of proportion. It's not even a biography since not a single event of his life outside this one single episode is described.
I'm no friend of Fram, but in this case I agree: this wasn't the first time that I found Geo Swan's BLPs to be falling short. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he did. He's venting against Teh Evil Admins here; he's not vandalizing articles. I'm a lot more lenient about usertalk space; I suspect this is a previously blocked editor but he's not editing anything but a usertalk page so far. It's NPA violations not mainspace vandalism, and it's on a user talk page, and it's vaguely directed at all admins rather than anyone in particular. I think he'll run out of steam; if another admin chooses to block then I won't fuss because I don't care, but I'm not going to block unless he keeps at it. KillerChihuahua19:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, just a question as I've not seen it clearly stated - are user sandboxes CSD-able under U5? I get that sandboxes are for testing, and I've come across sandboxes that look like drafts for legitimate things, and others that look like adverts. What's typically the best course of action or a place to report these? - D7a894f1d (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as adverts if they look unsalvageable, IMO. I'm pretty lenient about sandbox space, and articles started in a sandbox are sometimes (I hesitate to say often) improved, sourced, and cleaned up either before moving to mainspace (by original editor), or soon after (by others). YMMV, though, you just have to use your best judgement. KillerChihuahua19:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
