Mister Hunter. I've made a decision. I'm Captain of this boat. NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP!
— Captain Frank Ramsey, Crimson Tide
Not a topic for conversation … edit
Some Other Editor took umbrage with my refusal to elaborate on that declaration, and they had me blocked from editing Wikipedia for a week … thanks to the efforts of other editors on my behalf, the block was lifted within an hour, and this message was posted by one of the Administrators on the Talk page of the editor who initiated the blockage with their complaint about me "using anonymity to violate WP:Civility."
Anywho, I have posted this excerpt from their dialog to document that "The Case of The Anon-IP WikiGnome" has already been discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and that the Senior Partners continue to support my rights
- to not register, and
- to anonymously engage in editing without further inquiries about my reasons
… they have already rejected the proposal Editors should be logged in users ... 'Nuff Said!
BTW, my current Wiki-IP-handle is whatever is in this signature, because it changes with every interruption of my Verizon DSL service ... I'll try to remember to update it each time it changes so that the WikiStalkers can keep track of me. :-)
Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy Editing! — 138.88.7.48 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
72.75.73.158 edit
72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 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)
Extracted from User talk:Geo Swan#72.75.73.158 —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)