Welcome to my Wikipage. While archiving is "preferred", there is no Wiki-rule saying blanking your user page is unacceptable, and as such, I usually keep this page clear. Do not be offended and please do not leave the "welcome" template here.
And no, I do not want a wikiaccount. IP's deserve equal respect. Consider it a test of the concept of an encyclopedia "anyone" can edit.
RfC etc
Hi, it's the early hours here so I'm going back to bed. I'll get back to you on these matters soon. In the meantime it may be worth checking out WP:TE, M:DICK and WP:POINT. Cheers Ash (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Seeing as Ash received the same request as I did, I shall add to their response that if you think an evaluation of a particular user's activities is warranted you should get familiar with Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment on users. I should add that I have not taken this route in the past myself, so I cannot give you any more specific advise. meco (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Back in the room - okay here's my 2p worth. Unfortunately if the basis of your complaint is that an editor (User X, say) is making a point by targeting gay-related articles for deletion, then a RfC or ANI is unlikely to get anywhere unless this were an extreme case. The basis of any admin intervention would be that such targeted deletions were deliberately disruptive editing. Even if such deletion discussions were raised for many articles over a long time, the nature of the AFD process is that the nominator gets no particular weight during discussion and so by the inherently fair nature of the deletion discussion process (it is rather a good well proven process), articles only get deleted when there is a reasonable case for doing so. Consequently to prove this was truly disruptive, someone would have to do something pretty extreme, such as stepping through all the articles in Category:LGBT putting them up for deletion without reasonable grounds.
- Saying all this, there are other things you could try and I would recommend them in this order:
- Discussion with X on their talk page to make your view of their activities clear. You must make a good faith attempt at this before doing anything else.
- Ask for advice and support on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, this may generate some suitable discussion on what is fair and reasonable to expect.
- WP:WQA if you feel they are not listening to repeated complaints about their actions.
- Either raise an alert on ANI with the above evidence of initial discussion, WQA and the list of contentious AFDs or do the same thing for wider community discussion on a RFC/USER.
I have raised a couple of WQAs with mixed results (advice tends to come from rather less experienced users), my experience with ANI is sort of okay so long as the action to be taken is clear and the issue is straightforward to describe and as with Meco I have never used the RFC/USER process as normally things resolve themselves with sufficient prior discussion. It can be very hard to keep an open mind but please remember that another editor's actions may seem deliberately disruptive but they may honestly believe they are acting for the best of reasons, sometimes they just need another way of getting their point across. Sorry to mention this but you should be aware that complaints from anonymous IPs will probably be treated with more initial suspicion regardless of the guidance of WP:HUMAN. Cheers Ash (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)