User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/NotATopic/GeoSwan

How I got speedy blocked for WP:NPP activity
The short version ... for the second time in 2 days, I put a speedy delete tag on one of this user's "stub" articles about a lawyer associated with the Guantanamo Bay detention camp abuse investigations ... this really must have pushed a button, and the next thing I knew, my IP address had been blocked from editing within 6 hours of my second CSD nomination ... apparently, this user had lost some stubs to an overzealous admin, and it took several days to get them restored.

Now, truth to tell, if they'd used a sandbox, and the versions seen on New pages patrol had looked more like the current versions, then neither one of them would have been tagged.

Anywho, they were chastised for going someplace they were warned to avoid (it was not a topic for conversation), and this thread concludes with my attempting to do some damage control from the new IP address that I started using even before the block was lifted. &mdash;68.239.79.82 11:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Zalmay Shah, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 72.75.73.158 05:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "For reference, see this version, the one I tagged with (while on New pages patrol) before posting the above courtesy warning. &mdash;68.239.79.82 11:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"

A tag has been placed on Kevin Sandkuhler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 72.75.73.158 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "For reference, see this version, the one I tagged with (while on New pages patrol) before posting the above courtesy warning &mdash;68.239.79.82 11:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"


 * Please explain more fully how http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mora_memo_july_2004.pdf fails to satisfy the requirement for a reliable, authoritative source for Kevin Sandkuhler's position and involvement in early discussions of the legality of the "extended interrogation techniques"? Geo Swan 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the same reason that any PDF document on a website as the sole "published source" about the subject fails to satisfy Notability for why the subject should have an article (see WP:BIO), even if it's from the American Civil Liberties Union website ... would you accept a JPEG copy of the Majestic 12 documents as a WP:RS regarding what Harry S. Truman did as a result of the Roswell UFO incident just because it came from the Wikipedia website? &mdash;72.75.73.158 18:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Kevin Sandkuhler for what happened when I returned to readdress my concerns about this article ... which, BTW, had been virtually untouched since the fiasco of my temporary (and totally ineffectual) block. &mdash;68.239.79.82 11:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

72.75.73.158
has now been unblocked, after I discussed the block with the blocking administrator. 72.75.73.158 is an anonymous contributor to Wikipedia, and we should respect that right. The user does not wish to discuss the anonymity, yet you kept pestering the user about it after he gave you a sufficient explanation for tagging your article for speedy deletion (albeit, it may be incorrect). In any case, it would be advised to not make potentially incorrect and sometimes slanderous generalizations or evaluations of other users, even if they are anonymous.

As for 72.75.73.158's userpage, I must say that this statement is not really a big problem. If an administrator deletes an article, and you know that 72.75.73.158 tagged the article for deletion, why would you go to the IP user? He/she is not an administrator and cannot view or undelete the article and therefore, cannot be of much help in your situation. It would be best to always contact the administrator, since it is their responsibility to evaluate each article for speedy deletion and make their own decision as to whether or not it should be deleted. As for leaving notes on talk pages, I have advised the user to do that more often, since it is both courteous and helps new users understand the circumstances for their page's deletion.

To sum up, 72.75.73.158 has not violated civility policy. He's made a few mistakes here and there, but he has also done a great deal of accurate CSD tagging. I think that his activities on Wikipedia are commendable, but in any case, I will keep on eye on the user in the future. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)  23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you might want to see this. Nishkid64 (talk)  23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 72.75.73.158 stated that he did not wish to discuss his decision to not make an account on Wikipedia. That's a stance that Wikipedia has to respect. If he is abusing his anonymity, then he should be rightfully blocked. The point: He wasn't abusing any policy. I said you were "pestering" him because after he provided you with his explanation for the article not being notable, you immediately targeted his status as an anonymous Wikipedian, despite the user's wishes that the issue not be brought up. (FYI, his actual username has been established--he's The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome) I said you misled people because you purported your own view of 72.75.73.158's actions. Your interpretation was clearly not what 72.75.73.158 had in mind, and by presenting speculation instead of facts at WP:AN/I, you gave an impression to other uninvolved editors that 72.75.73.158 was a bad Wikipedian. As for Sandkuhler, saying "he is notable for xx..." means absolutely nothing. Notability is established by context, not by mere words that say he is notable. 72.75.73.158 felt he wasn't notable, and he might have been wrong. Wikipedians have their own interpretations, and they are allowed to make mistakes. Heck, even I have botched up a few CSDs in my time. Also, what you're implying is that 72.75.73.158 was wrong in his assessment of Sandkuhler. 72.75.73.158 was entitled to his opinion, and if he does not think he's wrong, then he's free to maintain his stance. When he tagged the article for deletion, it probably could have been considered suitable for speedy deletion by a few administrators. There's no right/wrong here and like I said, 72.75.73.158 did not have to admit his mistake to you. I still think that your approach to discuss the matter in civil fashion could have resulted in a more positive manner. Some of the stuff you said yourself was pretty harsh, since he's only made a few mistakes while on CSD patrol, out of hundreds of articles that he has tagged. On a side note, what's with your stance about administrators? I'm getting the impression that you think administrators really don't check speedy deletion carefully, which is not true. All admins have to evaluate each article on a case-by-case basis, and if you have witnessed instances where this is not being done accordingly, then you should bring it up to WP:AN/I. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)  23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:68.239.79.82
Hi ... would you please have a look at my new talk page? I have copied some of the material from the previously blocked User page into a sandbox called Here about a speedy delete? ... one editor was very upset with my apparent disregard for WP:CIVIL with the tone of the previous version of my greeting, so I wanted to run it by someone before my IP address changes again.

I have also created a section called What to do after your speedy delete has been restored ... I hope that I assume enough of the responsibility for Too Speedy deletes while explaining my lack of authority to "make it right".

I guess I'm thinking of a tutorial with Examples, like I've collected on the previously contentious IP talk page ... I even documented a Dirty Dozen Newbies I have warned in a single hour while on Newpage Patrol one day ... maybe I could even work on the wording of some of the templates to avoid the "Please eject yourself from this website" replies to a nn-warn post.

BTW, I figure that the "Please don't say I have to register ..." boilerplate will be my signpost, even if the "What to do about your Too Speedy deletion" greeting becomes an article of its own, like WP:TOOLATE, that could be referenced from the warning templates.

Anywho, I figure you might as well just make any changes directly to the talk page, because I'll want to do a copy&paste to initialize the next one ... if I make another one. :-) Happy Editing! &mdash; 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC) -- Copied from User talk:Geo Swan &mdash;The Bipolar AnonIP Gnome 11:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)