User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse/Archive/2006/August

Fabricationary seems to be confused using the tool.
uses VandalProof to both revert removals of Speedy deletion tags, and to warn users for doing so. All of this when there is no policy against removing the tags. He has been warned by myself and one other user for this. I recommend someone reviews his work and perhaps mentors him in the correct use of the tool and Wikipedia in general. Cheers, Ans e ll  07:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ansell, you are using the incorrect gender pronouns :).
 * I have been using Vandalproof for several months now (having logged about 1700 reverts recently, though the number is about 1000 higher since the counter reset when I moved Vandalproof from my documents to the desktop). It has been invaluable to me in maintaining the quality of Wikicalendar pages, where the majority of those 2700 reverts have been employed.  I also use Vandalproof as a convenient way to place speedy delete notices on articles/place prods/report users who have edited unconstructively after t4 to AIV, though to a lesser extent.  Of course, I like any editor am prone to the occasional errors.  To the best of my understanding, when a speedy delete notice is removed by the creator of the page in question, the proper response is to reinstate the tag and place the drmspeedy template on the user's talk page.   I think the instance Ansell is referring to is in the case where I placed speedy tags on Mindrot, which has been deleted more than once.  A new user, User:1 Meat and 2 Veg, who within an hour of the incidence was indefinitely blocked for trolling, removed the tags.  I believe it is a fair assumption that a new user might not know the speedy criteria and might be removing the tags as a way to prevent the page's deletion, so I gave the user a drmspeedy warning.  An admin later said the page asserted notability and did not speedy it, though I think it was a fair assumption to place speedy tags on it as it had been deleted multiple times previously.
 * Thus, despite the occasional and inevitable errors in using Vandalproof, I believe that my edits with it have been overwhelmingly positive and that my use of it is certainly not abuse. I think this is just a misunderstanding that Ansell should have discussed with me before bringing this up here.  Fabricationary 03:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I was possibly over the top for calling for a ban on your use of VandalProof. However, I and another user had attempted to discuss this with you previously, and found no reply. Part of the confusion may be that drmspeedy, which you say you use frequently, does not in my mind have a basis in policy. I still suggest you check out the exact meaning of some policies, like the wording of WP:CSD. A7 is meant for where there is absolutely no claim of any sort of significance, not for the speedy nominator to judge the claim if it exists. The AfD that you made up for an article that I kept removing speedy tags on Articles_for_deletion/NSAMC (and would have suited Proposed deletion much better) enforced the already existing consensus that speedy tags are not for pages with claims to significance. BTW, I try hard not to use gender specific pronouns on wikipedia, but I slipped up! :) Ans e ll  07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I use drmspeedy quite infrequently in comparison to the rest of my editing. It seems fair to use it if the user who removed the tag is the creator of the page or a brand new user who might not know the ropes yet.  The first level of drmspeedy is a friendly note and assumes good faith on the part of the editor who removed the tag; the majority of users in my experience who have received that note from me realize their mistake and don't repeat it.  I do not use drmspeedy if the user replaces it with a prod or explains in the edit summary or elsewhere that the article asserts notability and does not need a prod either.  In the case above, User:1 Meat and 2 Veg left no edit summary when removing the tag and proceeded to add nonsense to the userpages of many editors, which cast enough doubt on his or her intent to edit constructively leading to his or her indefinite account blocking.  As I said above, I like any other editor am prone to making mistakes, so it's possible that sometimes I've tagged something I felt met A7 that to another editor or to another group of editors does not.  It is possible that there have been cases in which I haven't thoroughly read the entire article and haven't spotted the bit that claims notability, whether true or false, in a bulk of superfluous information or content.  However, I am confident that, barring the occasional inevitable error, I am capable of correctly tagging articles that need to be speedied and taking the proper course of action with involved users.  Fabricationary 20:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing really wrong here, a few minor mistakes made, but nothing too significant. All in all Fabricationary seems like an excellent editor and a fine user of the tool. I'll let other mods cast their opinions, but I presently don't see any need to ban or even scold =D. Thanks for reporting this though, Ansell, and I encourage you to do so in the future any time you think someone's use of this or any other tool is questionable. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of VP software
Dear moderator,

User Bakanov deleted my good-faith entry on Vladimir Nabokov using the VP software:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Nabokov&action=history

I have reposted my 1-paragraph addition deleted by Bakanov.

Thank you, SHM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.202.96.43 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:AmiDaniel:

I believe that user Bearly541 should be removed from the approved users of VandalProof. Yesterday, he announced that he wanted to leave Wikipedia. See: There was a long series of questionable uses of VandalProof and both User:Metros232 and I were about to report abuse of VandalProof when User:Bearly541 decided to leave Wikipedia. However, today, it appears he is back and is still using VandalProof. I'd appreciate your recommendation of the best way to deal with this. If there's another place where I should report the abuse or suggest that Bearly541 be removed from the list of approved VandalProof users, please direct me to the appropriate place. Thanks Brian 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)btball


 * I do see some cases of questionable editing, such as this revert and the following warning. Let me look at it a bit more closely and I will get back to you. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)