Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BuddhaInside

< Problem users

fix the ForestFire

BuddhaInside
20 people called for its deletion. 7 said no. On any page on wiki, that qualifies as a consensus. Stop trying to reinvent the rules simply because you couldn't get your way, and few people supported you. FearÉIREANN 19:15, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * User:BuddhaInside - continues to re-add page that was Vfd deleted. Blanks his own talk page rather than respond.Ark30inf 00:30, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Vfd did not achieve consensus.-BuddhaInside
 * Second day in a row attempts to re-add a page he admitted was a stalking horse and that was VfD deleted.Ark30inf 02:53, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * You have completely misinterpreted my statements if you think that this is a stalking horse. -BuddhaInside
 * You stated that you had no intention of the article actually remaining for "any length of time" and that it was merely to spur discussion of the organization of sexual orientation articles. Thats pretty much a stalking horse article.Ark30inf 03:02, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the "list of heterosexuals" article (which I desire to see stay) with the "list of heterosexuals not noted for their sexuality" article (which was created to demonstrate my point). The former is a legitimate topic, the latter was a response to those who were trying to limit the former to only those "famous for their sexuality". I hope this explanation was short and to the point enough to make clear the misunderstanding.  -BuddhaInside
 * Once again added article previously deleted due to VfD vote.Ark30inf 22:27, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
 * New page has no content in common with former page which was deleted without VfD consensus. -BuddhaInside
 * More BuddhaInside lies. *sigh* For the record (for all those people who do not know), 28 people voted on the deletion. 71.4% said delete (75% if you include a 'delete or rename' vote as a delete vote, which is reasonable as however way you looked at it the vote was against keeping BuddaInside's format). Most pages deleted have votes cast by less than 10 people. Many are deleted with 55% support for deletion. His beloved page was voted on by a huge number by VfD standards and the overwhelming majority rubbished the article and called for its for deletion. (Indeed the number of people defending it stayed static for most of the time, while those voting to delete climbed constantly). BuddaInside was simply using his joke of a page to push a POV agenda and was torn to shreds as ridiculous. So, to be frank, his claim that the page was deleted "without VfD consensus" is nothing short of a blatent lie. FearÉIREANN 00:54, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Stop slandering me by claiming that I have lied on wikipedia. Having 28.6% of voters against deletion means you did not have consensus, merely a large majority.  You are using that majority to trample on the will of the minority.  Neither do I have a POV agenda, nor was I "torn to shreds" as ridiculous.  I assert again, and maintain, that this page was deleted without VfD consensus. -BuddhaInside
 * If you seriously think 71.4% is not a consensus you are living in cloud cuckooland. In any system of voting, 51 out of 100 is regarded as a majority, 7 out of 10 is by definition regarded as a consensus. As to torn to shreds - your page received the following comments: "A complete waste of time . . . This article is about as useful as List of people with toenails . . . It is like "List of people who are not bald" . . . This is a pointless page and should be removed. If we keep it the next thing will be 'List of famous white people' . . . Can we please delete the page "List of Heterosexuals"  It was on VfD, before it was moved off.  There are only two entries on the list, and the page is generally misguided. . . . I also can't imagine what someone would be looking for in an encyclopedia to come across a page like this" Its edit history included as an example:
 * 1) (cur) (last) . . 22:25, 6 Sep 2003 . . Danny (vote for deletion)
 * 2) (cur) (last) . . 21:42, 6 Sep 2003 . . Ark30inf (vote for deletion)
 * 3) (cur) (last) . . 20:47, 6 Sep 2003 . . Ark30inf (comment)
 * 4) (cur) (last) . . 20:23, 6 Sep 2003 . . 12.88.85.244 (I agree. please delete this page. It serves no useful purpose.)
 * 5) (cur) (last) . . 20:15, 6 Sep 2003 . . At18 (deletion vote)


 * I hesitate to get involved between Jtdirl and BuddhaInside, but I would like to state my personal opinion. While 20 vs 7 represents a sizeable majority, it does not represent a "consensus", in my understanding of the word. That said, amongst those who supported the list of hets page, it seems that most are happy enough to consent to the will of the majority for now, and only BuddhaInside wishes to press the issue. Thus, there is a (non-unanimous) consensus for accepting deletion, though there is not a consensus for supporting deletion. From my perspective, these kinds of distinctions, while subtle, are important. Martin 01:00, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Exactly, 20 vs 7 does not represent consensus, and as I have been saying all along the page was deleted without consensus. Furthermore, it was deleted literally in the middle of active discussion regarding the page.  Regarding Jtdirl's List of famous white people example above, surely he wouldn't argue with such a list if there existed a List of famous black people as well? -BuddhaInside


 * Yet another phoney Buddha spin. The deletion page was set up to pull all the debate together and to take a decision in a seven day period, which is the standard timespan wiki uses in deciding on deletions. The active discussion was over. People were no longer contributing to the page. The vote on the deletion page was overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. On the eighth day, one day longer than the timespan given to most deletion pages, the page, reflecting the consensus on the deletion page, was duly deleted and the deletion debate archived. Buddha's behaviour at this stage is bordering on vandalism. He won't accept the opinions of the people who voted to delete his pet article. He tried to redefine the concept of consensus as practiced by everyone on wiki to a form which supported his view and ignored agreed wiki conventions, rules, practices, editing, deletion rules, etc. He tried to set up phoney related articles as part of his POV agenda in promoting his opinion on his pet article. Now as Angela shows below he tried to doctor other articles as part of his game plan. Hep has already had to protect pages to stop his behaviour. If he cannot do as everyone else does and follow the rules of wikipedia then he should leave and set up his own website to promote his agenda. But he will not be allowed to play God and insist that wiki rules are what he says they are, and use the site and doctor its articles to push his agenda. FearÉIREANN


 * My word, you certainly have an special way of looking at things. Do you deny that the page in question was actively being edited and debated in the hours prior to deletion?  Do you deny that my changes to Consensus remain accurate and backed up by at least one major dictionary?  Since you seem sure god-fired sure that I have an "agenda", do you care to share what you think it is?  Regarding Hep protecting pages, he has been doing so in disregard of the stated reasons for which pages should be protected and apparently doing so for no logical reason other than disciminating against me individually. -BuddhaInside

''In adding in my reply, somehow my reply and Buddha's original comment both disappeared. I'm reinstating Buddha's comments. Sorry Buddha, I wasn't trying to censor you. (This is the second occasion in ten minutes where a save produced odd results. An RK redirect left a blank space in the original location. Is something going wrong with the system?) '' FearÉIREANN 22:29, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Noted - BuddhaInside

Changing the definition on the consensus page won't help Buddha. I have reverted your change and added the following (moved to Talk:Consensus). Angela

Page blanking
(to User:Eloquence) I don't like the user talk page being protected. However, I recognise that you and others have concerns regarding the actions of this user. I suggest linking to an archived version on hir user: page, and protecting that, and unprotecting the user talk page. What do you think?

Oh, and I've listed the page on protected page - let me know if there's a problem with that. Martin 14:25, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * No, I do not want Buddha's user talk page to be unprotected. There needs to be a clear and obvious way to contact this user and if he keeps blanking his talk page this is not the case. I think he will be put on auto-revert soon if he keeps acting like he does. &mdash;Eloquence 15:25, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

If the page is unprotected it is entirely possible to contact BuddhaInside by editing hir user talk page. There's no guarantee that BuddhaInside will read it prior to blanking it, but there is no guarantee that sie will read it anyway. In fact, the record shows that BuddhaInside does read hir user talk page. For example, when sie blanked Cyan's comment, sie moved it to User talk:Cyan, and answered it there. That method of communication appeared clear and obvious to Cyan, at least. I've done it myself on occasion.

The current situation is, for non-sysops, vastly inferior. First, I may not edit the page myself, so I am forced to beg a friendly sysop to do it for me. To do so, I additionally need to describe where I would like my comment placed. If I make a typo, I must seperately request that the typo is corrected. All this is very cumbersome. Second, when I finally manage to add my comment to the page, BuddhaInside cannot respond there, because sie's not a sysop. Even doing the trick sie did with Cyan is hampered - non-sysops cannot view the source of the page. Martin 16:48, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with singular they?


 * Would you like an essay? ;-) Martin


 * Anyway, Mr. or Mrs. Inside's actions are in clear violation of the Wikipedia community spirit. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to play silly games with talk pages. The protection enables users to at least leave a message for the public record, clearly visible to everyone who visits it.


 * I think we're getting somewhere. Your concern is not to protect my ability to talk to Mr/s Inside, which is unaffected by hir blanking of the user talk page. Rather, your concern is to protect my ability to leave a message for the public record.


 * My suggestion would be that you place messages for the public record on the user: page, and protect that if need be. However, messages for the user can be placed on the user talk page, unprotected. I recommend against blanking one's talk page, but I don't think such a recommendation needs to be enforced by page protection. Martin


 * I don't think sysops need to request other sysops to edit the page -- this whole "let another sysop do it" practice is intended to avoid abuse of power on regular articles, here a more pragmatic stance is entirely acceptable. Any trusted user can become a sysop, after all.


 * As such, I believe that their talk page should be protected again if they resume blanking it.&mdash;Eloquence 20:59, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * What do you think of my alternative suggestion of protecting the user page, and placing public record messages there? Could that be a way of making us both happy? Martin 21:50, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, as per established precedent, we allow users to put on their user page whatever they want. To deliberately obscure a useful communication channel is another matter. Protecting a user page is, from a policy standpoint, more problematic than protecting a talk page, in my opinion.


 * I have the opposite opinion. Protecting a user page only affects the user in question. Protecting a user talk page affects everyone - it hampers a useful communication channel. However, we may have to agree to disagree here.


 * Here's another option: Can we agree that Buddha should not blank their talk page without good reason? If so, we can simply revert the blanking, and if they persist in doing it, ban them as a vandal.&mdash;Eloquence 22:03, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * I can agree that BuddhaInside should not blank hir talk page without good reason. I'm not sure that would warrant banning in itself, though it might in combination with other actions. Martin 06:44, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)


 * Heck, even this user page gets blanked every once in a while.&#25140;&#30505sv 03:49, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

from user talk:BuddhaInside
Recreating the page is this way after it has been deleted through the proper channels is bordering on vandalism. I would like to remind of what Jtdirl said here: "It is not wiki policy to allow a page that was deleted to be put back like that. If that is done, a sysop will simply delete it outright. If wiki decides to delete these pages (and on the votes so far it is a foregone conclusion) then they will be deleted and any attempt to try to recreate the same page by the back door will be seen as vandalism and deleted on sight. FearÉIREANN 21:50, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)" Angela 00:22, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So you are using the rule that users can generally control their own talk pages to keep people from messaging you. That confirms my opinion of your previous actions.Ark30inf 00:26, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BuddhaInside, refusing to communicate with other users on your talk page by consistently blanking it is not in the spirit of Wikiquette and WikiLove, which are fundamental concepts of the Wikipedia community. Nor is your behavior on the silly List of heterosexuals. You are welcome to make contributions to Wikipedia, but if you continue with your current trolling, it is likely that you will end up being banned. Please focus on useful contributions instead of alienating other contributors. Thank you! Note that this page might be protected if you continue to blank it, to guarantee that at least these messages are a matter of public record.&mdash;Eloquence 00:45, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

For the record, it must be noted that he appears to be perfectly willing to communicate with other users on their talk pages (like mine, for example). -- Cyan 01:54, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just some advice - it's probably a bad idea to try and edit VfD at the moment. Votes for deletion/temp might be an idea if you don't want your comments to be lost in the edit wars. Angela 03:24, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Edit war
While your support is appreciated, I would prefer it if you participated in the arguments on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion so we can bring an end to this pointless conflict.&mdash;Eloquence 04:15, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Is it regular that a user may not edit his own pages ?

It is widely believed that this user is a banned troll returning to cause more havoc. It would be interesting to know if it is Adam, DW or one of the other neanderthals that return to screw up pages periodically. FearÉIREANN 22:15, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Heterosexual list
How do you prove that someone is a heterosexual, given the fact that those who express the strongest distaste for homosexuality and put the strongest emphasis on their own heterosexuality also have a higher likelihood of being closet homosexuals? On the other hand, who would claim to be a homosexual while not being one, given that this is not an attitude one can derive substantial social or personal advantages from? It seems the data on homosexuals is much more reliable than the data on heterosexuals.&mdash;Eloquence 03:22, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

Camembert unprotected this page, following my request on wikipedia talk:protected page. Martin


 * BuddhaInside (I choose to have no content on my user or talk page)

Not your choice to make, love. Sorry. Martin 08:26, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

deletion request one
Reiterate request to have User:BuddhaInside and User talk:BuddhaInside deleted. After deletion, would prefer that both pages be protected -BuddhaInside
 * This user has already been involved in two major edit wars. The talk page should be open in case that unfortunate situation arises again no matter how unlikely it may be.  I think the user page can be protected if thats what he wishes though.Ark30inf 02:30, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The problem is that he is going to insist on the deletion every time someone writes anything on it. This is impractical, although current deletion policy (point 7 on immediate deletions) does seem to say an admin has the right to delete these pages on request. Perhaps in this case he might be better advised simply to blank his pages if he so wishes. Angela 02:37, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * If he were to engage himself in another edit war where would discussion take place on it? If there is another locale then thats fine (I'm still new here).  I am just worrying that he is attempting to shut off debate about his actions.  Which have been a bit controversial.Ark30inf 02:40, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Blanking is not identical to deleting, and doesn't achieve my objective at all. I'll discuss any specific page on the talk for that page, but I'm going to request my user and talk pages be deleted anytime content is added. -BuddhaInside
 * Perhaps if you gave the reasons for wanting them deleted and protected. The only one I can come up with in my limited knowledge is that you want history of discussions about controversy you are involved in deleted and to shut off discussion of any controversial actions you might take.Ark30inf 02:45, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Edit war discussions really need to take place on the talk page of in question. The fact that they often end up scattered across various user pages is wrong. This prevents an accurate record being kept and hinders those trying to follow what is going on. So, edit wars aren't the issue here. The issue I have is that talk pages are the means to communicate with other users. It is simply not acceptable to demand deletion every time someone leaves a comment there. Angela
 * Okay, I understand now. ThanksArk30inf 02:49, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BuddhaInside, do you have any reason for this request or are you just being pedantic? Any sysop can still read the contents of a deleted page so you are not hiding anything by doing this. Angela


 * Oh yes, my reason is very simple. I want my name and talk link to appear in red on the "recent changes" page.  I really don't mind if sysops can review the history of my page, that doesn't bother me at all. -BuddhaInside


 * I'm afraid that isn't possible. Red links are there to demonstrate a user is new. They rarely stay red for long as new people are welcomed fairly quickly. You are most certainly not new, so this does not apply to you. Please try to focus on writing articles rather than worrying about what colour your name appears. Angela 02:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Request denied.

You are not having your pages deleted. Will you just quit bothering the village pump please. You can only request that sub pages be deleted there, not actual user pages. All current users must have a user and talk page. There is no way of getting these deleted unless you quit, and even then it's not guaranteed. Angela 00:22, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * BuddhaInside, I think of myself as just a guy who likes to contribute to Wikipedia, but from time to time I have disagreements with other contributors here. Some are right (making me in the wrong), but sometimes I know I'm right & the other party (frankly speaking) has her/his head her/his ass. At this point, the trick is making other people see things from my POV. Now I don't know all of the tricks, but an important place to start is not to blank my Talk Pages.


 * Take a look at my own Talk Pages -- some of which are archived. You get to read the words of people who agree with me & disagree with me in their own words. Do they convince you? Or do they make you think they are simply jerks? Do you see how useful a Talk Page can be?


 * Consistantly blanking your Talk Page only ruins your own credibility. Please reconsider. -- llywrch 00:50, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Militantly blanking your talk page to prevent communication is childish vandalism.--Flockmeal 04:45, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How different is it from User:Evercat always blanking his talk page in a similar way ? Anthère


 * The difference is timing and interaction levels. Evercat every so often comes through and cleans-up his/her talk page.  BuddhaInside, on the other hand, is acting in a passive/aggressive manner, in reaction to being taken to task on several rather (IMHO) silly List of _____  pages.  No one, that I've seen, has accused Evercat of non-responsiveness.  Ducker 11:40, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * well, the only time I put something on Evercat page, he blanked it 30 mn later. I did not get a comment.


 * Acknowledged. From looking over Evercat's Talk page history, I can see no edits by you more recent than July 7.  While I don't know why e didn't respond to you, in other incidents, e responds on the other party's talk page. Ducker


 * It was because I didn't see the need. Anthere was simply telling me something. I suppose I should have said thanks - sorry. Thanks. :-) I don't have a big problem with BuddhaInside blanking his talk page, because I see the talk page as more like Wiki's internal email system than a message forum - the point of them (to me, at least) is simple delivery of messages to each other; you can assume that when he blanks the page, he's read the message. Evercat 13:53, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hard to say from today perspective :-) I remember that I sort of waited for an answer/commen then. But it is no big deal, and I have no pb with you blanking your talk page. It was just a little bit puzzling. But just as you said, one can assume that when another blank his talk page, he first read the messages on it. And so is my feeling in this buddha case. Anthère


 * In any case, no matter what else can be reproached to this buddha; I stand up that a personal page is a personal page, as long as there is nothing strongly offensive on it or illegal, users can do whatever they want with their user pages. Blank them, put terribly pov rant, put their biography for self-promotion. Anthère


 * My take on this is that the talk page is not exclusively the domain of the user in question. You should note that there has been no attempt to keep buddha's user page; the fact that e wants it blank is more-or-less being honored. Ducker


 * But as far as I am concerned, a user is a user -even if painful- and should have the same rights than those granted to others. Or just ban him to make clear he has no rights, because unable to work with others. That will solve this issue. Just don't stand in the middle.


 * As I understand it whether or not buddha will be banned is in discussions. My vote would be for such.  In the meantime, IMO, this page should be available in its most immediate, and un-expurgated form. Ducker 13:22, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, imho, this page should be available in its most immediate form to the USER it belongs. Anthère

And how is a user supposed to "talk" to you if his talk page is protected ? That really escape me... Anthère


 * since this is the second time I unprotect this page today, I think that comment of mine could have received an answer. I will ask it again in case I was not clear. Some editors are complaining this buddha refuses to communicate (I saw him communicating on the consensus page yesterday with Angela btw). How is this Buddha supposed to communicate with you if you protect his talk page ? How correct is that to protect *someone else talk page* ?


 * Protecting page is usually used to protect the encyclopedia from being damaged. Could anyone explain to me how blanking a user talk page is damaging the encyclopedia in any way ? Anthère


 * I agree with your point -- Its certainly impossible to argue that "the policy states" the opposite when there is no such policy. Further, plenty of people routinely delete/summarize their talk pages. They tend to be polite about it--responding in some way to each. Talk pages are used for communication. If your blocking that communication, you block other users from helping you and supporting you--you should not be surprised if your fast being ostracized. Writing articles, unless you remain firmly in the copyeditor category -- takes communication -- period. It may be that your case will make new policy.-&#25140;&#30505sv 04:13, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... Seems to me that we Wikipedians are missing a crucial point here. If we respect the right of individual free speech (as we do), we must equally respect the right to remain silent. Indeed, forcing an individual to speak against his will is probably more invasive than forcing that same individual to remain silent against his will. In short, BuddaInside, I know absolutely nothing about your edits, your ability to cooperate with others, or your contribution to this community. But unless your contribution here is so negative that you are formally banned from editing (as a small number of very disruptive people have been), then you have every right to blank any and all comments on this page (including, of course, this comment). It is your page, and you are entitled to do as you like with it.

Best regards -- Tannin 07:43, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if he was allowed to keep a blank page (something I don't have a problem with), he would stop demanding it be deleted. Could people please stop reverting to the non-blank version to see if this solves the problem. Thank you. Angela 19:10, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I think my response to Tannin would be that this talk page does not belong to BuddhaInside. My talk page does not belong to me. Both, fundamentally, belong to Wikipedia. Wikipedia permits me to use one of its talk pages to discuss stuff. I summarise and refactor the talk page named after myself with the (implicit) consent of Wikipedia - if Wikipedia decides that my summarising is misleading, counter-productive, or otherwise a poor use of the resource, then I do not have a right to do so. Rather, if Wikipedia decides that it can do a better job than me, then it has a right to do so. The same applies to my user page - if Wikipedia decides that it can do a better job of describing the entity that is known as MyRedDice than I can, then it has a right to edit the user page named after myself, to be a more accurate description.


 * I'll leave as an exercise for the reader what it might mean for "Wikipedia" to make a decision. In any case, I suspect much of this discussion should be moved to wikipedia talk:talk page. Martin 23:09, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Even in a collective space, it may be better that the system leaves room for a bit of privacy and freedom of movement to its entities. As long as it does not hurt the system itself. In this case, the collective group does not seem to agree on whether it would hurt itself or not to let this little space private.


 * As a matter of interest, would you accept to take care of my user space while I take care of yours ? Anthère


 * Sounds like a fun idea :) It could be like a sort of exchange or something... Martin


 * Please do try if you feel like it, whenever you feel like it. Small changes, big changes. That might be a way of seeing how an entity perceive another entity. And then impact on both entities. Then we might change the paradigme :-) off to bed Anthère

The problem with Buddha's behaviour is not simply blanking his page, which others have done to their own, it is part of a pattern that involves ignoring other people's comments here, misrepresenting facts on talk pages, twisting articles to match his agenda, recreating deleted articles under marginally different names and insisting even when over 70% of people vote for an article's deletion that they cannot delete it because it hasn't a so-called 'consensus'. Evercat blanks his page, but he shows in how he reacts elsewhere that he had read what was said on his page and taken it seriously. He shows other users respect in everything he does. Buddha has shown contempt for everyone else's opinion. His blanking isn't a case of tidying his page, it is a case of telling the wiki community 'feck off. I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks. I'll do what I want and will remove any criticism of me'. FearÉIREANN 19:30, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Either that or he's trying to provoke an argument. Perhaps do not feed the trolls might be a useful thing to remember (this advice is aimed at myself - not to be taken as criticism of anyone above). Angela

Anthere, Wikipedia is not about "rights". Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia. The talk pages serve this purpose -- they allow me to check the history of an article, see who made a certain change, and ask that user for clarification, for example. Talk pages are public for a reason -- so that other users can add feedback and explanations if the user in question is not available. Just look at what we are doing right now -- we're using a user talk page for group discussion. Yet you want to argue that BuddhaInside somehow has the "right" to blank all of these comments without any consideration for the users who make them? Just because they are on "his" user talk page? That's, frankly, ridiculous. BuddhaInside is deliberately trying to stir up trouble. He enjoys it. This whole discussion is enjoyable to him because it serves his purpose -- to annoy as many people as possible. But his purpose is not our purpose. Our purpose is to create an encyclopedia. And since BuddhaInside has proven in the past that he is very stubborn, the most reasonable course of action is to hard-ban him.&mdash;Eloquence 08:39, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * Eloquence, I agree with you this would be unacceptable behavior to blank talk page of *encyclopedic* articles. But this is not an encyclopedic article, this is a user talk page. If one want to discuss articles with this Buddha, one can discuss the article on the article talk page. A user talk page is *not* the best place to discuss an encyclopedic article, the article talk page is. And this Buddha is actually using article talk pages. You are confusing the two spaces.
 * If one want to discuss how problematic a user is, one may discuss this in "problematic editor" where it will meet a larger audience, because the average user is not supposed to guess a discussion over an editor is taking place here (unless one begins to scream in summary box, but we are polite people, we don't do this).
 * I trust that this Buddha is reading comments left on his talk page, just as every other user blanking his talk page is doing. And we can quietly go on discussing the topic, and he blanks it from time to time. So what ? Everything is in the history anyway. You are getting disturbed by very little problems.
 * Buddha is only a problem on this talk page because a couple of people decided it was bad to blank a talk page. But other people don't think it bad. I see no clear majority on one side or the other. But the discussion over "ownership" of user pages is interesting.
 * You mention it is a problem for the whole encyclopedia as it disturbs course of event. Just drop the matter and leave that page quietly alone, it won't disturb the encyclopedia any more. Reverting the talk page to add an argument if fine and constructive, reverting the talk page just to revert it, is just further fueling the conflict. Just opposite to trying to deescalate a conflict and try to resolve it.
 * If this Buddha is seriously damaging articles, to the point you think he needs to be banned, I suppose most editors will agree with you it might make sense. But most editors will *not* follow you on banning people just because they want a clean talk page. The only reasonable course of action is just to tolerate this non hurting fantasy, and discuss articles issues on article talk pages.


 * Anthère


 * I'm not going to disagree with you on this, Eloquence, rather state a subtle point of difference. I'm not familiar with BI's edit history or anything else (though I gather from the above that it ain'y pretty). But the way I see it, it's an either-or. Either this talk page of his is his to do with as he sees fit (subject only to the usual legal and reasonable-member-of-the-community considerations), or his behaviour requires a ban, in which case he also forfeits the priveledge of a personal talk page. I've read Martin's argument above and respect it, but I don't agree with it. In summary, I believe that a reasonable amount of room for individuality (such as that which user pages and user talk pages provides) is both a pleasant and an ultimately productive thing. Am I making any sense? Tannin 09:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are. That's exactly the point. When a respected member like Evercat blanks his talk page after reading a short notice, he exercises "a reasonable amount of creativity". So does Martin when he occasionally refactors discussions. When someone like BuddhaInside routinely blanks discussions, including those which are not directed at him but about him, this goes far beyond reasonably creative editing. If his contributions were top notch and he was otherwise a well behaving member of the community with a sincere goal to build an encyclopedia, such eccentricities might be forgiven. But as he is behaving in a deliberately obnoxious manner that practically screams for feedback (e.g. by recreating the "List of heterosexuals" dozens of times after it has been deleted), his conduct here is all the less forgivable. Those who defend him should recognize that the spectrum of obnoxious behavior goes far beyond simple vandalism. Repeated and deliberate trolling is just as problematic for the community as a whole. This is why Lir was originally banned, and BuddhaInside is behaving in much the same way. I and others have asked him several times to change his behavior, but he hasn't even responded -- neither here nor elsewhere.&mdash;Eloquence 09:37, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * Please, Erik, do make a solid reference list of behaviors for which this Buddha is guilty. With references, links, arguments and dates. I agree the behavior over the lists was wrong (when was that already ?) but I would be interested to see the arguments given for banning a user just for choosing what to do with his talk page. If the argument is that the page is private, there is no true argument for banning. If the page is public, there is no reason why editors would be alone to edit their page. Perhaps the best choice is a in-between solution, with a certain degree of liberty for each one, including the liberty to blank his talk page. I believe routinely banning annoying users is just as problematic to the community as a whole, than not allowing a user to blank his talk page if he feels like it. Anthère

okay, i admit i only just discovered this argument (and it may have been resolved or whatever, [missed the boat again]) but..

What's wrong with someone blanking their own talk page??? Who the hell do people think they are "reverting" the changes someone makes to their own page! The user page, and its discussion page are the two pages that a user should have some control over!

If someone blanks their page, because they're ignoring you, it's their choice to ignore you. let them. You can add another comment to the talk page, (that's what it's for) but revert it!? If they're harming article pages, revert them, if they keep doing it, ban them. By all means keep an eye on people doing this.

But telling people that they can't blank their own user page (and then making it okay for someone who has been at wikipedia for longer), smacks of arrogance and elitism. It's a good way to discourage new people from helping wikipedia. --Tristanb 02:52, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(BTW i'm not getting at anyone, that's just my gut response when i saw the VPump bit) doesn't matter anyway, it'll be blanked soon :-)

Deletion request two
moved from pump

Angela has asked that personal subpage deletion requests be posted here [ie, at the village pump] instead of in Personal subpages to be deleted:


 * Requesting deletion of my User:BuddhaInside and User talk:BuddhaInside subpages. -BuddhaInside
 * The answer is no. I am fairly confident that, with regard to this account, the answer will always be no.  Constantly asking and reverting is simple vandalism on your part. - Hephaestos 01:00, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion. -BuddhaInside
 * I agree with Angela and Hephaestos, constantly blanking your User and User Talk pages is childish vandalism. Fellow Wikipedians should be able to contact you, and the easiest way for them to do this is through your talk page. If you don't want to have a talk page, don't use Wikipedia. -Flockmeal
 * A continuing edit war is going on at BuddaInside's Talk page. I request it be reverted and protected by an Admin. This is an ongoing vandalism issue and nothing more. -Flockmeal
 * Gee, that is exactly what I requested oh so long ago. Revert it back to the 22:12, 6 Sep 2003 version, protect it, and then we will both be happier. -BuddhaInside
 * I continue to believe it is against the spirit of policys laid down at Wikipedia to keep people from communicating with you via your User Talk page. Your user talk page, which you continue to vandalize should be reverted to the most current revision(at the moment my first revision on 15 September) before your most recent blanking. It should then be protected. This will be my continuing belief, and I will continue to revert it until something like I describe above occurs. And that's all I'll say here. Admins, I'm sorry for continuing this edit war, but I feel strongly about this, please help. -Flockmeal
 * It's not a subpage. Go to VfD. Martin 08:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Flock -- I understand you just got here. It might be a good idea to not "feel too strongly" about certain protocols and conventions. They arent so much a matter of strong feelings as they are of consensus. Consensus is made by emailing the mailing list at wikien-l ET Wikipedia DOT org or Wikipedia-L ET... for more general talk. This is, of course after you fully understand the existing policy, its caveats, and the importance of wikilove toward our fellow 'pedians. That said, you may be (according to reports) dealing with someone bordering on troll-like behaviour-- in which case it must be dealt with as a community problem. --&#25140;&#30505sv 04:08, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about one of my edits, take it to the talk page for the edit in question. If you want to talk about * me *, don't expect me to participate.  I'm not here to engage in discussion about myself. -BuddhaInside

Request denied, again. It's not a personal subpage, so deletion requires consensus, according to our current deletion policy. Martin 12:17, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(above moved from village pump)

Deletion request three
User:BuddhaOutside (probably a second identity of BuddhaInside) requested the deletion of the two pages again, this time on Votes for deletion, posting them in the list of the September 11 requests - probably trying to get the fast track to deletion. I moved them to the correct place. andy 17:40, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * User:BuddhaOutside does not represent me, made edits on my behalf contrary to my position, and forged my signature to at least one of these edits. -BuddhaInside

Further discussion
BuddhaInside is attempting to prevent the deletion of any "List of ..." article listed on Votes for deletion by indicating "withhold consent" after every listed List. This is his attempt at trying to hold the deletion process hostage. RickK 03:25, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

He marks all his edits (many quite major) as minor. --Jiang 03:39, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If anyone has any objections to banning the User:BuddhaInside account, which has fairly clearly been used for hardly anything over the last two weeks but consistent trolling, please list them here within the next 24 hours. Thanks. - Hephaestos 03:47, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I support a ban. He doesn't blank his talk page anymore. Instead, he keeps moving it to hide it from view. Note the following:
 * User_talk:BuddhaInside/Delete0655
 * User_talk:BuddhaInside/Delete4368
 * User_talk:BuddhaInside/Delete5253
 * User_talk:BuddhaInside/Delete3091
 * User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete2201
 * --Jiang 05:10, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Heph. I am sorry to ask you this (and I sure do not want you to drop your admin privilege, as I just don't see the relationship with this), but I think that since this would be the first (or one the first ?) banning of a user name not done by Jimbo, it is extremely important that a clear consensus is made on this case.

As I have already told Erik (who will certainly support you here), I think the banning of a user requires a clear listing of all the reasons that lead to his banning (a sort of a "ban this user" page, though this name is not nice, I suppose the current page is perfect for it). I think a clear bulleted list of reasons for banning right here, would not be out of line. So that each person can decide in hier mind and consciousness that he is ok with the banning, not ok with the banning, or just would accept any resolution.

I looked for this list of arguments given here, and I see that most of the discussion deals with the blanking of this bouddha talk page. As I already argued this point, I will just state again that to my opinion (and indeed to the opinion of many other people as the discussion above clearly show), blanking user page and user talk page is not enough to grand being banned. I am aware that buddha also did things some people do not appreciate, but wikipedia has been so slow these days, that I did not follow precisely. Since you ask for a banning, it is clear to me that you are aware of all these. I would be happy if you could list the "reproaches" made to this buddha, perhaps with a couple of links so that the situation can be globally assessed. If the list is relevant, I will not oppose a banning. Also, please see this as a kind of scale, which will set a precedent for banning grounds based on certain arguments. Thanks in advance Heph Anthère

Just for a start
 * This buddha has been consistently blanking his user and user:talk pages
 * this buddha has been asking for the deletion of his talk pages
 * this buddha is marking major edits, minor (example ? - as far as I can tell, every single edit made, whether major or minor-H)
 * this buddha is preventing deletion of article (example ? - examples are cited under the header on this page "Further discussion"-H)


 * I'm of the opinion that there's plenty of evidence already here, and on the user's deliberately obscured talk pages (which I can copy if necessary). I'm in the process of contacting Jimbo for an OK. - Hephaestos 05:56, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the only evidence I really see listed is the blanking of his pages and the minor/major. This said, Alex is right we are spending far too much time on this. However, if we were just not giving attention to the blanking of his pages, we would not loose so much time :-) . I see no pb with asking Jimbo his opinion. It is just that doing so is reverting to a (gentle) dictatorship when he is just giving us the tools to make a decision ourselves, just big boys and big girls, instead of again asking him to manage things. It is also a way I regret, given that very likely, were you giving the facts that to your opinion grant a banning, most of us would probably agree with. I regret a bit that when someone ask evidence (that you certainly would be able to provide), your answer, Heph, is "the evidence is already provided above" (not so) and "let's ask confirmation to Jimbo". I hope you understand what I mean. It is certainly much easier for you to answer me "this is provided above" and "Jimbo will support this" than answering to my question. But why did you ask other people opinion then ? I mean...isnot that a bit streching things far that saying "please provide evidence that we should not ban him" rather than "please provide evidence that we should ban him". Currently, the status quo (I mean the basic wikipedia rule) is that everyone has the right to edit, and to ban someone evidence should be provided that the person is denied this right. Currently, you suggest that he is banned, and that opponents should prove he has the right not to be. Does not that appear a bit strange to you ?


 * He (I will refer to the user as "he" for brevity) reinstated a deleted article dozens of times, with the same material in it, simply because he did not like the deletion. After he gave up on this he proceeded to make more nonsensical "lists of" which then had to go wait a week on VfD.  Then he made an attempt to rewrite the consensus article to make it support his own agenda.


 * Apologies here. But this report is not very fair Hephaestos. He didnot make an attempt to rewrite the article, he edited the article, and supported the change by relevant references, which were accepted. I agree the change was intended to support himself, but this is not so unusual :-) The edit was accepted, and the precision brought by the edit was supported by several wikipedians on the ML. This part of the argument does not look very "solid" to me. Anthère


 * Have a look at Royal Flush (made today) and then take a look at the only article it links to (made yesterday), and tell me if that isn't trolling behavior.


 * Heph, I believe you meant "that links to it" (Caribbean Stud Poker) rather than "it links to" (toilets, Bridgeport). Hope that helps.  Ducker 10:33, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I see a ton of evidence "for" (including that which is listed above), but with respect I don't really see anything but rhetoric "against". Practically every move this user makes on the Wikipedia is calculated to disrupt it, and distract from the work at hand.- Hephaestos 06:53, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

&#65279;I also support the ban. This user through its argumentative approach has wasted much valuable time of wikipedia editors who could otherwise use that time to improve content. I also think this bud- needs to go into a cave in the Himalayas somewhere for at least forty days to get his -dha back. How about shunning? This buddha imposter needs a good swift kick in his karma &#8212; such an act of compassion is not at odds with the dharma. Anyway, someone says "if you see the buddha, kill him." That?s the nature of buddhahood, bud. Alex756 05:44, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alex and Hephaestos. BuddhaInside is wasting a huge amount of everyone's time, trying to provoke arguments by the creation of pages he knows will be contentious and objecting to the deletion of articles just for the sake it when there would otherwise have been consensus. Everything he does is with a view to proving a point, and for some reason he insists on trying to do this through creating pages or getting involved in edit wars, as he has done numerous times, rather than actually discussing his views. Angela 17:26, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Consensus Issue
My understanding of consensus is different from JTD's -- possibly even different from Buddha's. I personally am willing to consent to a policy or decision that I've voted against, following the principle of "go along to get along".

However, if only 55% want an article deleted, this means 45% want to keep it. Same logic for 75% vs. 25%. I don't think every issue should or can be decided by simple majority voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but a project to create a free, neutral encyclopedia.

Even if 90% of other users disagree with me about global warming, I'm not going to change my mind or stop trying to make it "neutral". I really think I'm better at detecting bias than 90% of the other users!! I was a bright child, and I'm accustomed to knowing a lot of things that defy common sense; particularly, things requiring an understanding of logic, math or statistics to grasp.

On the other hand, getting along with others is also important. No one would permit me to be a Developer-rank sysop -- with the power to untraceably delete pages and kick off users -- unless I earned and kept that most precious of intangibles: trust.

Eloquence and I have both risen to the task of (a) trying scrupulously to be neutral, while (b) bearing the burden of near-supreme power and (c) making a whole lot of contributions and edits of our own.

Buddha, you can learn from this. What, I don't know, but I'm sure you can learn something ^_^ --Uncle Ed 19:16, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Vandalizing the Main Page
BuddhaInside just redirected his Talk page to Main Page. RickK 03:02, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Well if you're duplicating that statement, so am I: - that would be fine. What he actually did was MOVE the main page to his talk page. Angela (still shaking from the shock of it)

Utopia is not a real place. You can perhaps have a complete consensus all the time with two people, 5 people, 10 people, but not 2000 people. What you will have is an encyclopedia filled with assorted garbage, endless edit wars, and ceaseless controversy. Problem users do exist and will continue to exist and will not be dissuaded by thinking love waves at them. I've avoided commenting on him getting banned because I sort of like him as a two-dimensional rebel character. But that's worn off. He needs to be bounced, particularly after the latest incident. If he wants to fit in then he can appeal to J.Wales Ark30inf 03:25, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * User:BuddhaInside redirected his Talk page to Main Page. RickK 03:00, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * erm - that would be fine. What he actually did was MOVE the main page to his talk page. Angela (still shaking from the shock of it)
 * Is there any edit history somewhere that shows this happening? I don't mean to say it didn't, especially after Tim Starling left a note on User talk:BuddhaInside about it, but I'm a bit curious and can't find any history of the event myself. -- Schnee 12:29, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * How could he have moved the main page? It is protected, and I don't think he is an admin. --Wik 14:55, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * He discovered a software bug. Although the "move page" link was not available to non-sysops.. typing that URL into the address bar was sufficient to get round the protection and get to the move page dialogue. The bug was fixed very quickly. Thanks to User:Brion VIBBER for doing that. Pete 15:08, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * True, but even so, he shouldn't have moved the Main Page just to prove the bug was real... -- Schnee 18:47, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * He didn't know about the bug. See at the bottom. -- Cyan 19:14, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * He may not have known about the bug, but he tried to see if there was one. I can't imagine an innocent explanation for dinking around with a URL that moves the main page.  It doesn't seem like something you would stumble into while doing something useful.  From the comment by Brion above I assume he got a move page dialogue of some sort.  Looks like he would have known at that point. Ark30inf 19:20, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * It's not the sort of thing that happens by accident! He would have had the move page dialogue box, into which he would have had to type User_talk:BuddhaInside/Delete2985 before clicking to accept the move. He knew exactly what he was doing. He wasn't trying to do us all a big favour by finding a bug! If you're bug hunting, you don't try it out on the home page.

For those above who seem to doubt the event ever occured, here is a record of what you see if you go to undelete the main page:


 * 03:57, 25 Sep 2003 Angela deleted "Main Page" (move page - wtf wasn't this protected?)

* 03:55, 25 Sep 2003. . BuddhaInside * 03:54, 25 Sep 2003. . BuddhaInside (moved to User_talk:BuddhaInside/Delete2985")

This shows that he first moved the page to the Delete2985 page, then edited the page, meaning that the original could not be put back in place without deleting the newly creating one. Angela 20:24, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It was deliberate, he knew exactly what he was doing, and he should be banned forever. I put a "thank you" note on his talk page, but I was just being wry. BTW I never actually saw the main page in its other location, I just saw him move several protected versions of his talk page to /Deletexxxx subpages, that's when I cottoned on. Moving a page doesn't make an entry in the article history, so the only record of the main page move is in the archive, and in various other non-public logs. -- Tim Starling 15:21, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)