Somebody on wiki destroys your work then has it deleted.....

[Ca$hBag]

..on the basis that it's "not encyclopedic." That is, after destroying it.

Been IP editing for a while and this was my latest experience. Somebody destroys all the work then shows it to the 'community' saying "look it's not encyclopedic, let's delete it". The 'community' nods with blind eyes, deaf ears saying "there's nothing on it" without bothering to check the history.

I wasn't an avid contributor to wiki for a while till recently because I find everyone wants to 'validate' their opinion by citing wikipedia, so I go there to modify the 'facts' and this was my latest experience.

Somebody snippets your work one by one, then tells the crowd nothing's on it in the first place and has it removed. Have you guys ever experienced this?

It also seems they try to fetch the wiki-bullies who are trigger happy on the delete button when they want something deleted, A-hole Mike being probably the most predominant of them.

Just thought I'd get that off my chest.

[Zoloft]

*pats Ca$hBag sympathetically on the back*

Lots of us have been there or seen that. It's an ancient tactic.

[thekohser]

My favorite tactic used against me is this... After I write a decent short article about a company, without getting carried away with flattering superlatives like "the world's third-largest widget manufacturer" or "listed three years running as Utah's best place to work", someone comes along and says the article needs to be deleted because no claims to notability have been made.

So, I go and add all of the superlative reasons that establish notability for the company, and what is the response? "The article is nothing but marketing puffery; delete it!"

[Ca$hBag]

*pats Ca$hBag sympathetically on the back*

Lots of us have been there or seen that. It's an ancient tactic.

Thanks. Really appreciate it. And I figured as much. Just wish people would bother to check the history of the article. Are they so blind. People calling it a 'paragraph' or short essay before looking at the article. *sigh*

Not my greatest day, but again which day is when it comes to wiki.

The faster that site runs out of traffic and goes to hell, the better. Thanks again for the sympathies.

[Ca$hBag]

My favorite tactic used against me is this... After I write a decent short article about a company, without getting carried away with flattering superlatives like "the world's third-largest widget manufacturer" or "listed three years running as Utah's best place to work", someone comes along and says the article needs to be deleted because no claims to notability have been made.

So, I go and add all of the superlative reasons that establish notability for the company, and what is the response? "The article is nothing but marketing puffery; delete it!"

Now that's normal and strange at the same time. The invalid deletion proposal but the inability to add a page about a company onto a site wanting to be the source of all human knowledge.

I mean if they disagree why don't they change it? But to delete it begs the question how the heck are you going to have an entry on it?

[thekohser]

The invalid deletion proposal but the inability to add a page about a company onto a site wanting to be the source of all human knowledge.

Jimmy Wales deleted this article that I wrote. Wales called it a "PR puff piece" and "corporate fluff". His primary reason for deleting it was his misinformed assumption that the article had been paid for by Arch Coal. It hadn't. In fact, Arch Coal had no idea I had written the article -- I had authored it, just so that I would have something to point to on Wikipedia as I began a sales campaign that would reach out to energy companies (which at the time was the most disproportionately underrepresented industry on Wikipedia, when looking at the Fortune 1000 as a base).

Note: I had not had the opportunity to apply more reference citations to the article, when User:J.smith (T-C-L) copied it on September 19, 2006 from my article workspace on MyWikiBiz.com over to Wikipedia article space.

[Lukeno94]

Ca$hBag, it would be good if you actually say what the article was, so then one of the Wikipedia admins that participate here can actually show us whether the deletion was valid or not.

[thekohser]

Ca$hBag, it would be good if you actually say what the article was, so then one of the Wikipedia admins that participate here can actually show us whether the deletion was valid or not.

And if you follow my advice, "Never disclose. Never." No good can come of it, in the current Wikipedia culture of retaliation.

[Kelly Martin]

Ca$hBag, it would be good if you actually say what the article was, so then one of the Wikipedia admins that participate here can actually show us whether the deletion was valid or not.

Ca$hbag, you gain nothing by disclosing what article it was you worked on. Luke's request does not serve your interest; it only serves his, and Wikipedia's. If you do disclose the article, that disclosure will almost certainly be used by Wikipedia's administrators to validate the deletion and to mark your account and your IP addresses as belonging to a confirmed malcontent. It will ensure that you will never be allowed to make lasting changes to Wikipedia ever again. Keep this in mind before disclosing any information about your editing activities on Wikipedia in this or any other forum, as Wikipedia's administrators and functionaries are incredibly vindictive and will hold grudges (even when they have no basis) basically indefinitely.

[Lukeno94]

Ah, so we're going to aimlessly attack me, are we, Kelly? This is not to serve "my" interest; if the deletion was obviously inappropriate, then I'd happily try and fight the deletion.

[Ming]

Ming personally isn't all that interested in an unsubstantiated sob story, nor in the drama board overacting about how bad it would be to actually own up to what article was involved. Mind you, Ming has come across some stealthy deletion moves, such as Schuminweb's "unlink the image so I can claim it's unused" stunt.

[Mason]

Mind you, Ming has come across some stealthy deletion moves, such as Schuminweb's "unlink the image so I can claim it's unused" stunt.

Ah, I remember that. Good times.

[Kelly Martin]

Ah, so we're going to aimlessly attack me, are we, Kelly? This is not to serve "my" interest; if the deletion was obviously inappropriate, then I'd happily try and fight the deletion.

I don't doubt that, but your attempt, happy or otherwise, will make no difference in the end. It'll remain deleted, and Ca$hbag will be punished further for the effort. You as well, quite likely.

[thekohser]

...aimlessly attack...

It seemed laser-guided to me!

[Jim]

Ah, so we're going to aimlessly attack me, are we, Kelly? This is not to serve "my" interest; if the deletion was obviously inappropriate, then I'd happily try and fight the deletion.

Not you Luke, just your rationale and logic. What you suggested could never have been in the OP's interest, long term. I think you didn't realise that, and were just offering help. Naievity gets mocked here. It's a learning thing.

[lilburne]

...aimlessly attack...

It seemed laser-guided to me!

Yeah but we all still love him. So you should offer him a hug after that.

[Ca$hBag]

Ca$hBag, it would be good if you actually say what the article was, so then one of the Wikipedia admins that participate here can actually show us whether the deletion was valid or not.

And expose my socks to you and your team-tag? I don't think so. Not meaning to be offensive, but your purpose on wikipediocracy as many other suspicious members appears to be for spying purposes.

Why would wikipedia admins and arbitrators of all people participate on a forum that criticize them and their conduct? Obviously to root out their rivals. If the debate is on wikipedia, why would agreements to delete turn into disagreements on wikipediocracy? Even if they did will it change the deletion process on wikipedia.

[Ca$hBag]

Thank you Kelly, much respect for this post. Yup I will take this advice into mind and definitely refrain from giving out the info. Just look at how wikipedia ex-arbitrator Kirill Lokshin has been on this forum without having a single post. You'd wonder why

Ca$hbag, you gain nothing by disclosing what article it was you worked on. Luke's request does not serve your interest; it only serves his, and Wikipedia's. If you do disclose the article, that disclosure will almost certainly be used by Wikipedia's administrators to validate the deletion and to mark your account and your IP addresses as belonging to a confirmed malcontent. It will ensure that you will never be allowed to make lasting changes to Wikipedia ever again. Keep this in mind before disclosing any information about your editing activities on Wikipedia in this or any other forum, as Wikipedia's administrators and functionaries are incredibly vindictive and will hold grudges (even when they have no basis) basically indefinitely.

[Lukeno94]

Ca$hBag, it would be good if you actually say what the article was, so then one of the Wikipedia admins that participate here can actually show us whether the deletion was valid or not.

And expose my socks to you and your team-tag? I don't think so. Not meaning to be offensive, but your purpose on wikipediocracy as many other suspicious members appears to be for spying purposes.

Why would wikipedia admins and arbitrators of all people participate on a forum that criticize them and their conduct? Obviously to root out their rivals. If the debate is on wikipedia, why would agreements to delete turn into disagreements on wikipediocracy? Even if they did will it change the deletion process on wikipedia.

Your interpretation of my purpose here is a long way from the truth, and any real attempt at analysing my posts and actions related to WO since I joined would show you that.

Scott Martin/Hex and Mason/28bytes, for example, are Wikipedia admins and respected contributors here. And that's just two of them. I would not tar either of those gentlemen with the "obviously here to root out their rivals" brush.

[Ca$hBag]

Ah, so we're going to aimlessly attack me, are we, Kelly? This is not to serve "my" interest; if the deletion was obviously inappropriate, then I'd happily try and fight the deletion.

I'm sorry Luke but you can't blame her for suspecting. By telling you the article is telling you my activities on wikipedia. Asking a self-confessed banned user (unjustly so) and sockpuppeteer their activities on wikipedia is asking them to identify themselves, especially when an admin is asking it AND coming to a site that criticizes the site he works on.

Nice try though, I just don't buy it.

[Ca$hBag]

Your interpretation of my purpose here is a long way from the truth, and any real attempt at analysing my posts and actions related to WO since I joined would show you that.

Scott Martin/Hex and Mason/28bytes, for example, are Wikipedia admins and respected contributors here. And that's just two of them. I would not tar either of those gentlemen with the "obviously here to root out their rivals" brush.

Of course you wouldn't because that hurts the agenda. Why else do you think other forum members agree with me? Nowadays you just can't trust anyone you don't know, cyberspace or real-world.

[Lukeno94]

Your interpretation of my purpose here is a long way from the truth, and any real attempt at analysing my posts and actions related to WO since I joined would show you that.

Scott Martin/Hex and Mason/28bytes, for example, are Wikipedia admins and respected contributors here. And that's just two of them. I would not tar either of those gentlemen with the "obviously here to root out their rivals" brush.

Of course you wouldn't because that hurts the agenda. Why else do you think other forum members agree with me? Nowadays you just can't trust anyone you don't know, cyberspace or real-world.

One other forum member agreed with you, and one whom I've only seen become active again recently. Do some research into my actions since joining here (on Wikipedia and here), and you'll see that I do not have any "agenda", other than wanting Wikipedia to be improved.

[Ca$hBag]

One other forum member agreed with you, and one whom I've only seen become active again recently. Do some research into my actions since joining here (on Wikipedia and here), and you'll see that I do not have any "agenda", other than wanting Wikipedia to be improved.

You ask a user to reveal their activities on wikipedia, on a forum that's visible to just about everyone and then claim it's to help them. Now if somebody from wikipedia wanted to target a user, how else do you propose they do it?

By baiting them, of course.

[Triptych]

Ah, so we're going to aimlessly attack me, are we, Kelly? This is not to serve "my" interest; if the deletion was obviously inappropriate, then I'd happily try and fight the deletion.

I'm sorry Luke but you can't blame her for suspecting. By telling you the article is telling you my activities on wikipedia. Asking a self-confessed banned user (unjustly so) and sockpuppeteer their activities on wikipedia is asking them to identify themselves, especially when an admin is asking it AND coming to a site that criticizes the site he works on.

Nice try though, I just don't buy it.

I agree with the cautioning remarks of Kelly and Kohser. Beware responding to seemingly innocuous queries here that actually point Wikipedia's cyberstalking administrative culture to information about you.

Cashbag is smart to have realized this on his own.

I have personally been private-messaged here by persons seeking closer communication with me on one thing or another I wrote, that turned out to have short-lived participation here, and that made me go "hmmmm."

Now, recognizing that Wikipediocracy participants behave better to each other than those at Wikipedia's administration do, that we don't routinely poke around "investigating" each other, and that these higher behavioral standards are occasionally enforced, let me go ahead and briefly glance at "Lukeono94."

Ca$hBag, it would be good if you actually say what the article was, so then one of the Wikipedia admins that participate here can actually show us whether the deletion was valid or not.

At which point Kelly cautioned Cashbag, and Lukeno protested, a bit loudly I thought:

Ah, so we're going to aimlessly attack me, are we, Kelly? This is not to serve "my" interest; if the deletion was obviously inappropriate, then I'd happily try and fight the deletion.

Okay. So, no ulterior or shady motive? Eh. The Wikipedia Lukeno94 account's first edit by the record was a revert on 8 January, 2011. It was a more-than-reasonable revert in that it corrected verbal abuse of an English football club, but a button-click revert seems nonetheless unusual for the first edit of someone who just joined Wikipedia for the first time. And Lukeno94's userpage does not acknowledge any prior account. His second edit is cleaning up a date section of the same article a scant few minutes after and adding wiki-markup hyperlinks to the date. Okay, this post is not to suspiciously indict him, but I scanned a little more and this does not seem to be a new editor to me.

Let's look at him now, in 2014. Very active at WP:AN/ANI. He's also editing race car stuff like his userpage says. He make an edit commented "clean up" that actually deletes several bullet points (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =598297382). He's doing a lot of stuff at Afd (Articles for deletion). Scrolling back 50 Lukeno edits at a time, I'm seeing high amount of reverts and talkpage comments, and (though it might be there in small amount somewhere) very little content creation at all.

Bottom line, this is an administrative participant, not a content creator. There's nothing inherently wrong with that *necessarily* but Lukeno94 is a discernably different sort of Wikipedia participant than say, Kohser, who above linked his nice content at Arch Coal (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=76592206) which was outrageously wiped out by Jimbo Wales as marketing fluff.

My point? Well, no offense to Lukeno94 really, but I'm not seeing anything in your edits that shows any prior interest in restoring wrongly-deleted articles. Plus, since you are not an administrator, it's curious of you to volunteer Hex' or anyone else's administrative services on Cashbag's behalf. So, put me down with the others: your comment is a "hmmm" moment.

[Zoloft]

Lukeno94 has been an open advocate of reform on this forum.

Looking at the exchange, I don't think he meant to tease out your identity at Wikipedia. He just doesn't look at the likely outcome in the same way as people who have been screwed over would.

He doesn't think like prey.

[Triptych]

Lukeno94 has been an open advocate of reform on this forum.

Example?

[Lukeno94]

Not a content creator, eh, Triptych? Let's not look at the fact I've written over 60 articles, and the reason there hasn't been any content creation in the last 50 edits is that I'm not in the best of health at the moment, and thus don't have the energy to sit down and write an article. Like most people, I go through phases; sometimes I want to write an article, sometimes I want to cleanup someone else's mess, and other times I want to combat vandals. I have a list of articles to write sat on my hard drive at the moment.

And if you don't see any interest in me restoring "wrongly deleted" articles, then I point you to Juan Manuel López (racing driver) (T-H-L), which was deleted in 2010 despite meeting NMOTORSPORT, and being a fairly successful driver (winning national and continental championships). There are a few other examples, but that is probably the most notable one.

And I don't have any interest whatsoever in CashBag's user accounts; I'd be happy for them to PM Scott (or someone similar) with the link, and for Scott (or someone similar) to produce an image of what the article said, without any information on CashBag's account at all.

[thekohser]

Ah, so we're going to aimlessly attack me, are we, Kelly? This is not to serve "my" interest; if the deletion was obviously inappropriate, then I'd happily try and fight the deletion.

I'm sorry Luke but you can't blame her for suspecting. By telling you the article is telling you my activities on wikipedia. Asking a self-confessed banned user (unjustly so) and sockpuppeteer their activities on wikipedia is asking them to identify themselves, especially when an admin is asking it AND coming to a site that criticizes the site he works on.

Nice try though, I just don't buy it.

If Ca$hBag wishes to privately disclose to me the article subject (and content, if available), I will promise not to disclose the identifying material, but will provide an honest general assessment of how "Wikipedia worthy" was the subject (and content, if available).

[MilesMoney]

Your interpretation of my purpose here is a long way from the truth, and any real attempt at analysing my posts and actions related to WO since I joined would show you that.

Scott Martin/Hex and Mason/28bytes, for example, are Wikipedia admins and respected contributors here. And that's just two of them. I would not tar either of those gentlemen with the "obviously here to root out their rivals" brush.

I have nothing to say about those two, but I have not forgotten what sort of low-class piece of shit you personally are.

The only issue I have is that MM hasn't been blocked indefinitely for being WP:NOTHERE, but I'm not surprised you didn't opt to dive in that deeply. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This ring any bells, asshole?

You're part of the problem at WP, not the solution. Cash was wise not to reveal anything to you.

[Zoloft]

Gentlebeings, this site is where we can be our best and rise above the corrosive atmosphere of Wikipedia.

Or I guess we could stage duels.

I dunno.

[EricBarbour]

You ask a user to reveal their activities on wikipedia, on a forum that's visible to just about everyone and then claim it's to help them. Now if somebody from wikipedia wanted to target a user, how else do you propose they do it?

By baiting them, of course.

Quite right. They did it on WR and they sometimes try it here (Zoloft has been better at getting rid of the worst offenders than WR's moderators were). And I guarantee that dozens of the top-level Wikipedia trolls watch this forum like hawks -- but never post here, nor do they fix any content problems posted here. They don't watch this forum for the "improvement" of the Wikipedia database, they don't give a rat-shit about the database. All they care about is criticism of themselves, and major scandals that might affect their pathetic little feudal duchies. Remember, bullies are also cowards.

If you get tossed or one of your pet articles is deleted, please; don't bitch, and don't come to WO looking for sympathy. We've got plenty of the latter for you, but ultimately it means nothing. We can offer some advice on what to do next -- if you're serious about saving a WP article. It's not "great" advice and it doesn't always work, but it's free.

[MilesMoney]

Gentlebeings, this site is where we can be our best and rise above the corrosive atmosphere of Wikipedia.

Or I guess we could stage duels.

I dunno.

Meh, too much drama. It would be just like Wikipedia.

I think I've demonstrated why Luke is scum that Cash is wise to distrust. I'm done.

No, wait, one more, straight from the asshole's mouth:

Support community ban, topic ban and BLP ban. Particularly the community ban; this user is WP:NOTHERE. Pure and simple; nothing more, nothing less than that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm done.

[Ca$hBag]

And I don't have any interest whatsoever in CashBag's user accounts; I'd be happy for them to PM Scott (or someone similar) with the link, and for Scott (or someone similar) to produce an image of what the article said, without any information on CashBag's account at all.

OK luke, but if you were to learn of what the article said, that pretty much gives away my info on wikipedia to not just you but several others. So I don't see how this makes a difference.

[fja]

Ah, so we're going to aimlessly attack me, are we, Kelly? This is not to serve "my" interest; if the deletion was obviously inappropriate, then I'd happily try and fight the deletion.

I don't doubt that, but your attempt, happy or otherwise, will make no difference in the end. It'll remain deleted, and Ca$hbag will be punished further for the effort. You as well, quite likely.

I honestly don't understand how wikipedia admins have been allowed to continue using BOFH style tactics on what is supposed to be a serious project. I have seen too many of them dilute the spirit of a WP:POLICY to ensure it justifies what they are attempting to co-erce another editor in to doing.

The best ones are the admins that claim to be anti-bullying then dangle a carrot on your talk page like "I still hold the position that you are a slothful ignorant buffoon of a pig. However you may be unblocked if you apologise on your talk page for inadvertently describing me as a 'cad' and promise to leave notes on my talk page and all my admin-clique pages and WP:ANI saying how malevolent you are and how sporting like I am for forgiving you so esteemedly"

[thekohser]

Ca$hBag seems to have disappeared. I reviewed his case. Waiting on his permission (via private message) to post my assessment of what happened.

[MilesMoney]

I honestly don't understand how wikipedia admins have been allowed to continue using BOFH style tactics on what is supposed to be a serious project. I have seen too many of them dilute the spirit of a WP:POLICY to ensure it justifies what they are attempting to co-erce another editor in to doing.

The best ones are the admins that claim to be anti-bullying then dangle a carrot on your talk page like "I still hold the position that you are a slothful ignorant buffoon of a pig. However you may be unblocked if you apologise on your talk page for inadvertently describing me as a 'cad' and promise to leave notes on my talk page and all my admin-clique pages and WP:ANI saying how malevolent you are and how sporting like I am for forgiving you so esteemedly"

Think of it in terms of quid pro quo. They're playing admin mostly to boost their sagging egos. In real life, they're pathetic losers. Online, they're even more pathetic, but they are winners. They have the Power and they're going to use it to force you to either suck up to them or debase yourself with apologies for not sucking up in the first place. This is the big psychological payoff that draws borderline sociopaths into such positions, and so long as WP allows their egos to be fed at the expense of editors, this pattern will continue. For non-admins, the equivalent is getting someone blocked.

[Ca$hBag]

Ca$hBag seems to have disappeared. I reviewed his case. Waiting on his permission (via private message) to post my assessment of what happened.

Hi kohser. Sorry for the late reply. I was away from the PC yesterday. I've sent a PM response.

[Ca$hBag]

Luke, with due respect, in review of your conduct on wikipedia by various members it seems your motive to improve wikipedia is not acceptable. If you truly wish to improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia, why don't you apply a different method. It's just not working for you.

One other forum member agreed with you, and one whom I've only seen become active again recently. Do some research into my actions since joining here (on Wikipedia and here), and you'll see that I do not have any "agenda", other than wanting Wikipedia to be improved.

[Lukeno94]

Luke, with due respect, in review of your conduct on wikipedia by various members it seems your motive to improve wikipedia is not acceptable. If you truly wish to improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia, why don't you apply a different method. It's just not working for you.

One other forum member agreed with you, and one whom I've only seen become active again recently. Do some research into my actions since joining here (on Wikipedia and here), and you'll see that I do not have any "agenda", other than wanting Wikipedia to be improved.

So a couple of people who have grudges against me because I helped to shut down some of their abusive actions are those who you choose to believe? Fine, it's your choice. I won't keep beating the dead horse.

[thekohser]

Ca$hBag has disclosed to me the article that he mostly authored some months ago, that is now subject to deletion. He is correct that a Wikipedia administrator came along, deleted a substantial amount of the meaningful content, then someone else nominated the article for deletion on the basis that it didn't contain sufficient material to prove its viability as a topic.

The article is not about a company, organization, or other entity that could reasonably be expected to benefit financially or reputationally from the existence of a Wikipedia article about the topic.

If I may make a comparison to what Mr. Ca$hBag did... Wikipedia currently has articles about Rock music (T-H-L), and then one about Progressive rock (T-H-L), and one further about Experimental rock (T-H-L). Now, you may or may not (honestly, you probably do not) know about a type of music called Zeuhl. The made-up word, "Zeuhl" means 'celestial' in Kobaïan, which is a constructed language created by Christian Vander of the rock band Magma. Originally solely applied to the music of Magma, the term Zeuhl was eventually used to describe some similar brands of music produced by French bands of the 1970s. Now, many of you are probably shaking your heads, "What in God's green earth is Zeuhl, and thank heavens Wikipedia has the decency not to give such a silly topic its own article." But then you'd be wrong -- there is a Wikipedia article about Zeuhl (T-H-L). It's a stub, with five references -- four of which are only talking about the Magma form of Zuehl, not the wider French-bands-of-the-1970s form. The article has existed since 2004, created in roughly the same shape as its current form by a single-purpose IP editor who made no other contribution to Wikipedia. The article Zuehl could very easily be deleted as a silly homage to a silly word made up by a silly musician to describe his band's style of rock.

Having said all that, I'll compare Ca$hBag's article as it stood before the admin came along and vivisected it. Ca$hBag's article is about a topic more serious than Zuehl. More has been written in secondary sources (at least according to Google Books) about Ca$hBag's topic (over 2,000 sources) than about Zuehl (0 sources containing the words "Zuehl" and "Magma"). That being said, it may be a bit tricky to argue that Ca$hBag's topic -- in and of itself -- has been firmly established as a topic of human knowledge. That is, knowledgeable people might talk about his topic, but they have not arrived at an agreed nomenclature to describe it. The prevailing Wikipedian argument is that Ca$hBag's article could feasibly be merged into another parent article, but in actuality Ca$hBag's topic is more expansive than the so-called parent article is intended to cover. (That is, it would be like suggesting the deletion and merger of Experimental rock into the Zuehl article.) Ca$hBag may not have chosen the most appropriate title for his article. For example (illustrative purposes only), where he might have chosen the title Zero-defects mentality (T-H-L), perhaps the better title would have been Zero defects (T-H-L).

In all, I will summarize as follows. Ca$hBag had created an interesting short article about a topic that could arguably belong in Wikipedia. An administrator who regularly acts like a prick came along and sabotaged Ca$hBag's effort, making it far more difficult to continue building on the foundation that Ca$hBag had established. And now, it looks like the article will be lost to the ages, "merged to Zuehl", if you will. Wikipedia had an opportunity to expand human knowledge in a very harmless way, but their community has elected to take a big, fat dump on this particular user's expression of knowledge.

[Ca$hBag]

So a couple of people who have grudges against me because I helped to shut down some of their abusive actions are those who you choose to believe? Fine, it's your choice. I won't keep beating the dead horse.

Not couple, several. Triptych's report seems to be accurate and evidence based. And from what I've seen, you do have a history of backing wiki-jerks.

Tip of the day, take a different course and maybe people will have a different opinion on you.

[Kelly Martin]

Administrative note: I've removed some of the more serious sniping from this thread. Please play nice, everyone.

[MilesMoney]

One other forum member agreed with you, and one whom I've only seen become active again recently. Do some research into my actions since joining here (on Wikipedia and here), and you'll see that I do not have any "agenda", other than wanting Wikipedia to be improved.

I posted some quotes which show otherwise. Your agenda is to support the ANI lynch mob system.

*edited to remove mistaken comment about the quotes being removed*

[Lukeno94]

Triptych's report wasn't remotely accurate; it was taken from a very limited time frame of the most recent edits. You cannot make claims like "not a content creator" when only looking at a small sample of the latest things. Particularly as Triptych hasn't contributed anything of note anyway (if that's their only Wikipedia account - which is unlikely, I will admit - then I've written almost as many articles as the number of edits they have made), and if they are indeed behind the Colton Cosmic account like a few people have said, then they've got grudges against everyone who points out how pathetic the way that account is run is. If not, well, I don't know where their grudge would come from. Not going into the MM subject again, other than to say their latest comment is also a lie, and this will hopefully be the last I have to say on the matter (unless anyone else feels like making stuff up about me again).

And thanks Greg for analysing the article in question; we know now that CashBag isn't just one of the attention-seekers turning up to get sympathy, with no merit to their claims.

[MilesMoney]

Okay. So, no ulterior or shady motive? Eh. The Wikipedia Lukeno94 account's first edit by the record was a revert on 8 January, 2011. It was a more-than-reasonable revert in that it corrected verbal abuse of an English football club, but a button-click revert seems nonetheless unusual for the first edit of someone who just joined Wikipedia for the first time. And Lukeno94's userpage does not acknowledge any prior account. His second edit is cleaning up a date section of the same article a scant few minutes after and adding wiki-markup hyperlinks to the date. Okay, this post is not to suspiciously indict him, but I scanned a little more and this does not seem to be a new editor to me.

Let's look at him now, in 2014. Very active at WP:AN/ANI. He's also editing race car stuff like his userpage says. He make an edit commented "clean up" that actually deletes several bullet points (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =598297382). He's doing a lot of stuff at Afd (Articles for deletion). Scrolling back 50 Lukeno edits at a time, I'm seeing high amount of reverts and talkpage comments, and (though it might be there in small amount somewhere) very little content creation at all.

Bottom line, this is an administrative participant, not a content creator. There's nothing inherently wrong with that *necessarily* but Lukeno94 is a discernably different sort of Wikipedia participant than say, Kohser, who above linked his nice content at Arch Coal (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=76592206) which was outrageously wiped out by Jimbo Wales as marketing fluff.

My point? Well, no offense to Lukeno94 really, but I'm not seeing anything in your edits that shows any prior interest in restoring wrongly-deleted articles. Plus, since you are not an administrator, it's curious of you to volunteer Hex' or anyone else's administrative services on Cashbag's behalf. So, put me down with the others: your comment is a "hmmm" moment.

Just to point out the obvious:
Luke is a sock.
Luke acts like an admin but doesn't have the bit.
Look for an admin who backs Luke up and you'll find his other hand.

[Ca$hBag]

Thanks Kohser, thumbs up to you

Ca$hBag has disclosed to me the article that he mostly authored some months ago, that is now subject to deletion. He is correct that a Wikipedia administrator came along, deleted a substantial amount of the meaningful content, then someone else nominated the article for deletion on the basis that it didn't contain sufficient material to prove its viability as a topic.

The article is not about a company, organization, or other entity that could reasonably be expected to benefit financially or reputationally from the existence of a Wikipedia article about the topic.

If I may make a comparison to what Mr. Ca$hBag did... Wikipedia currently has articles about Rock music (T-H-L), and then one about Progressive rock (T-H-L), and one further about Experimental rock (T-H-L). Now, you may or may not (honestly, you probably do not) know about a type of music called Zeuhl. The made-up word, "Zeuhl" means 'celestial' in Kobaïan, which is a constructed language created by Christian Vander of the rock band Magma. Originally solely applied to the music of Magma, the term Zeuhl was eventually used to describe some similar brands of music produced by French bands of the 1970s. Now, many of you are probably shaking your heads, "What in God's green earth is Zeuhl, and thank heavens Wikipedia has the decency not to give such a silly topic its own article." But then you'd be wrong -- there is a Wikipedia article about Zeuhl (T-H-L). It's a stub, with five references -- four of which are only talking about the Magma form of Zuehl, not the wider French-bands-of-the-1970s form. The article has existed since 2004, created in roughly the same shape as its current form by a single-purpose IP editor who made no other contribution to Wikipedia. The article Zuehl could very easily be deleted as a silly homage to a silly word made up by a silly musician to describe his band's style of rock.

Having said all that, I'll compare Ca$hBag's article as it stood before the admin came along and vivisected it. Ca$hBag's article is about a topic more serious than Zuehl. More has been written in secondary sources (at least according to Google Books) about Ca$hBag's topic (over 2,000 sources) than about Zuehl (0 sources containing the words "Zuehl" and "Magma"). That being said, it may be a bit tricky to argue that Ca$hBag's topic -- in and of itself -- has been firmly established as a topic of human knowledge. That is, knowledgeable people might talk about his topic, but they have not arrived at an agreed nomenclature to describe it. The prevailing Wikipedian argument is that Ca$hBag's article could feasibly be merged into another parent article, but in actuality Ca$hBag's topic is more expansive than the so-called parent article is intended to cover. (That is, it would be like suggesting the deletion and merger of Experimental rock into the Zuehl article.) Ca$hBag may not have chosen the most appropriate title for his article. For example (illustrative purposes only), where he might have chosen the title Zero-defects mentality (T-H-L), perhaps the better title would have been Zero defects (T-H-L).

In all, I will summarize as follows. Ca$hBag had created an interesting short article about a topic that could arguably belong in Wikipedia. An administrator who regularly acts like a prick came along and sabotaged Ca$hBag's effort, making it far more difficult to continue building on the foundation that Ca$hBag had established. And now, it looks like the article will be lost to the ages, "merged to Zuehl", if you will. Wikipedia had an opportunity to expand human knowledge in a very harmless way, but their community has elected to take a big, fat dump on this particular user's expression of knowledge.

[MilesMoney]

So a couple of people who have grudges against me because I helped to shut down some of their abusive actions are those who you choose to believe? Fine, it's your choice. I won't keep beating the dead horse.

You know, I'm right here. It's not a grudge to remember that you eagerly joined a lynch mob. It's a grudge to, say, keep trying to get someone banned for months. Get the picture?

[Triptych]

Not couple, several. Triptych's report seems to be accurate and evidence based. And from what I've seen, you do have a history of backing wiki-jerks.

Tip of the day, take a different course and maybe people will have a different opinion on you.

I looked at his first edits in 2011 and then paged back through like 200 of his most recent edits. So that is what I was going by. I looked again and "Lukeno94" still doesn't appear to be the first account of a new Wikipedia editor. Like I said its very first edit was a button-click revert. Its third edit was talkpage discussion correctly using wikimarkup for a new section title and then signed off with the four tildes. Its fifth edit is "info box improvements." Brand new editor? It surely doesn't look that way to me, and that's why.

However I was wrong to say Lukeno94 hadn't created significant content. I was paging back through his recent edits like I said 50 at a time and just didn't see any sign of content work. But at his userpage I now see he links a table of his creations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lukeno94/Creations. It's a lot of racing car articles, looks like. He also authored a racing videogame article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =548828189.

Sorry for misleading on the content creator question. I did describe on what I was basing my comments, and don't think I portrayed my assessment as conclusive although yeah I did utter the words "bottom line."

[Triptych]

In all, I will summarize as follows. Ca$hBag had created an interesting short article about a topic that could arguably belong in Wikipedia. An administrator who regularly acts like a prick came along and sabotaged Ca$hBag's effort, making it far more difficult to continue building on the foundation that Ca$hBag had established. And now, it looks like the article will be lost to the ages, "merged to Zuehl", if you will. Wikipedia had an opportunity to expand human knowledge in a very harmless way, but their community has elected to take a big, fat dump on this particular user's expression of knowledge.

The destruction and deletion of content work has occurred with me too. I had spent I think a Sunday morning making a new article for a company, one that basically qualifies as an household name for those old enough to remember the 70s or even early 80s. The way I wrote an article was just to do it from scratch, live on Wikipedia, and then start adding and revising. So I'd start with a single paragraph, then I'd add a reference or two, then I'd write some more, etc. so if you were looking back at the history you'd see those revisions clocking in ten or twenty minutes apart.

Anyhow I had got this company's article to basically a big stub, like three paragraphs and perhaps four references, and I'm basically typing away there like an happy wiki-camper, and then some jerk-off administrator swoops in and *wipes it out*. I mean he just swoops by in his F-14 and it's "bombs away." And my morning's work is gone, or at least in a place I can't get to it. I hadn't been copy-pasting locally to Notepad or anything like that. Did he even say why? It may have been the old "not notable" excuse. I can't exactly remember but I think I recreate the entry with a couple sentences and type a big "WHY?!" on the talkpage. And then he does show up and starts *bitching* at me about its quality.

For example, the company had experienced business problems that caused it to dismiss a huge portion of its workforce. I wrote about that, and he says "a few words and then it's just an attack article." And I say, "what are you talking about, the sources are right there for that, it's a big part of the company's history." And he goes on then to bitch about something else, and I'm like "it was a work in progress, you could see I was bringing it up to speed." I did, with a lot of frustration, work, and subjected to more bickering manage to get the article assembled again, and now of course it's the #1 websearch result and a solid resource on the history of that now-long-out-of-business company.

That may have been my introduction to "evil patrollers," these jerks that sit perched and refreshing on some dynamic page wherever it is that lists new articles, waiting to pick off the ones that irritate or don't appeal to them. A couple days later I noticed my patroller actually comment to one of his pals at his talkpage that he had been hung-over and irritable that Sunday morning. I swear to heaven! So the jerk-off administrator in question had hit the bottle a bit too heavily the night before and he's nursing a grumpy hangover and picking off new articles to make himself feel better.

I've seen this sort of thing plenty, occurring in different ways. I think it's a common experience for anyone who's written a just a few articles, and probably nearly universal for the serious contributors that have authored several.

[Lukeno94]

Not couple, several. Triptych's report seems to be accurate and evidence based. And from what I've seen, you do have a history of backing wiki-jerks.

Tip of the day, take a different course and maybe people will have a different opinion on you.

I looked at his first edits in 2011 and then paged back through like 200 of his most recent edits. So that is what I was going by. I looked again and "Lukeno94" still doesn't appear to be the first account of a new Wikipedia editor. Like I said its very first edit was a button-click revert. Its third edit was talkpage discussion correctly using wikimarkup for a new section title and then signed off with the four tildes. Its fifth edit is "info box improvements." Brand new editor? It surely doesn't look that way to me, and that's why.

However I was wrong to say Lukeno94 hadn't created significant content. I was paging back through his recent edits like I said 50 at a time and just didn't see any sign of content work. But at his userpage I now see he links a table of his creations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lukeno94/Creations. It's a lot of racing car articles, looks like. He also authored a racing videogame article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =548828189.

Sorry for misleading on the content creator question. I did describe on what I was basing my comments, and don't think I portrayed my assessment as conclusive although yeah I did utter the words "bottom line."

Thank you for correcting your inaccurate statement about my content creation (and now you can see why I was particularly annoyed, because I haven't only done a couple of stub articles). "Lukeno94" is my first Wikipedia account, unless I created one beforehand and completely forgot about it (unlikely), but I'm the sort of person who likes exploring behind-the-scenes type things before actually doing anything. I also tend to pay attention, when new somewhere, to instructions on the screen, and I'm fairly sure it would've told me how to sign my posts somewhere on the screen. I can fully understand, however, why someone would be suspicious of my "prior history", and today, I would probably be told that I was a returning editor of some kind. Back then, however, those train articles were in a much worse state than they are generally now, and people were less anti-noob.