Use THIS SPACE to complain about all the horrible procedural violations. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on here? This is really silly. So the page is created. A few hours later an anonymous user sends the page to AfD as their _first_ Edit. While I am honestly working to gather sources and justify this guys inclusion, more anonymous users with No Edit History play havoc with his page. There is vandalism, reports of copy-vio, and all manner of general harrassment, for no stated reason. I spend more time undoing the vandalism than contributing (See Old AfD). Finally and experiened editor with over 5000 edits (Adrian) notes what is happening and removes the article from AfD in keeping with Wiki Consensus (See old AfD). That is reversed by an anonymous user with no Edit History, for no reason I can see, and we are back at AfD. Anonymous vandalism continues and finally the site has to be semi-protected by admins because of all the abuse by users with no edit history. Captain Barrett 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Well, one way or another this is the messiest AfD I have seen in a long time. It now seems to require an admin to dedicate his time to watching over it so it doesn't degenerate as before and presently contains no delete opinions. Can we not finally put this one to rest? I cannot see a delete concensus ever being reached. And the procedural issues have utterly failed to gain any interest at AN/I. We seem to have all wasted a lot of time due to an unknown quantity of IP editors. WjBscribe 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only messy in that there are some new individuals who clearly don't quite get what is going on, and alot of people blathering on about procedure rather than discussing the merits of the article. Keeping the procedural stuff here will clean things up and get a fresh set of eyes on the page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be protected too, to prevent more of the same antics? (jarbarf) 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• _Sigh_ yeah, it would probably be a good idea. Good Looking out. Captain Barrett 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that would be a bad idea. Given that most of the delete opinions have come from IP editors, shutting them out would be counter-productive. I fully support closing this AfD, but shutting out one side of the debate seems counter-intuitive. WjBscribe 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The involved IP editors - including the nominator - were all blocked yesterday for being verified open proxy users. I noticed them doing similar stuff elsewhere. Probably one single editor hopping Tor Nodes to vote-stack. Obviously this is not acceptable behaviour, especially when someone is editing from a proxy to evade a block. - WeniWidiWiki 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think they were all blocked because not all of them were verifiable WP:OP from what I saw. Just a point of clarification. The blocks had nothing to do with their arguments, We block open proxies on sight.--Isotope23 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope23 blocked some as well. I aggree that roving IPs are disruptive, but they had legitimate concerns that should be addressed. They have had their say, though, and any disruption from any IPs on this AfD will simply be reverted without comment and the page semi protected. At this point, this AfD is generally meant only for experienced editors to comment on^{[citation needed]}. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If I was given the time I could find better sources. But because this page has been consistantly attacked since it's creation I have not had the opportunity. I could get his birth or death certificate, I could find his obit in the paper, there _is_ more. However, I also have a life. I am also not, nor have I ever been a member of the OTO. It seems very probable that Ebony is _so notable_ that people are actively trying to stop the creation of his wiki, permenantly. There is no other reason for all this drama that I can see. The only way to be objective is to leave the page open and submit for AfD again in a few months. Killing this page immediatly makes no wiki sense. If it is this easy to close a new Wiki, wiki is in trouble. Closing it now only feeds whatever forces are trying so vigilantly to squash this. You may be loosing a very important opportunity. 128.114.238.174 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)(Captain Barrett)[reply]

• "What we need to know is how notable they are within their own community. In more conventional religions there is are offices and distinctions that are commonly accepted and discernible from outside."-DGG wrote this on Sam Webster's page. Ebony actually held title in the OTO as Secretary General (Webster held no title), why are you not concerned with how notable Ebony was in his own community? Why does DGG give Webster better treatment than Ebony? Captain Barrett 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, speaking of double standards, I haven't seen you speak up to keep Sam's article. He's got nearly 20 pages of coverage in a book published by Harper. He's mentioned in books published by University of South Carolina Press and University of Pennsylvania Press, has written as much or more than Ebony, been a founder of two orders, etc. From a notability point-of-view, he's at least as notable as Ebony. I myself am thinking about giving Ebony a chance, but am waiting to see whether you are going to support Sam's article or not. Khabs 01:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never heard of Sam Webster. Wikipedia is not about "giving support" it's about who is _notable_.Captain Barrett 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC):[reply]

• Ah, seems you don't know what "notable" means in the context of Wikipedia. It is objective, not subjective. It simply means that:

1. The article asserts some specific reason(s) for notability, and
2. The are reliable sources independent of the subject that back up that claim of notability.

That being the case, all you have to do is

1. Read the article to see if it asserts notability, and
2. if so, check the sources and see if they appear to be published by a reputable publisher not connected directly to the subject.

You might also want to note that this is a collaborative community. Helping out is the name of the game here. If you came here to get something you want without giving or helping out in other areas, you may find yourself leaving emptyhanded. Khabs 06:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman, Quid Pro Quo is not how we work here, and ends up only hurting your respective cases. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What the heck does _that_ mean? I am a "scientist, I am not part of a "community" except "researchers." <3Captain Barrett 07:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about DGG's motivation, and I prefer not to speculate since it's easy enough to judge things in relation to the five pillars. From what I've seen of how things work here, the only way to really get anywhere is to look at the five pillars since those are the standards everyone here has in mind and questioning the character of contributors tends to get nowhere other than adding animosity to the community. I do think you have a point about relative notability CB. A sports star will necessarily have more sources on average than, say, a cryptozoologist. However, it can't be forgotten that one of the main purposes of notability criteria is to ensure that an article has enough third-party sources to build a verifiable article. Even if someone is the CEO of a corporation, you can't make a good, reliable and accurate article on them if there aren't enough proper sources. --Jackhorkheimer 06:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*what are you talking about?! Cryptozoology has _nothing_ to do with Ebony! See = Red herring.Captain Barrett 06:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize Jackhotkheimer. I was snappy and defensive because of all the W:OP vandalism. You are correct, we should judge by the 5 pillars. I believe once the page is unprotected, some of the infomation re-phrased and re-aranged, and heads cool off, you will find it easily complies with all standards. Thank you for participating. Captain Barrett 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. If you can be bothered to figure out what the standards of the community are (e.g. five pillars), your efforts are doomed to failure. Too bad, but ignorance≠bliss. Khabs 06:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• huh? please look into Khabs too. Captain Barrett 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC

Please see: [Jeff's Entry] on the Incident page. Jeff is a threat to the NPOV of this page. Captain Barrett 13:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Jeff was the one who took wiki page (Ebony Anpu)off of undelete
• 2. Jeff Removes this paragraph for no stated reason
• 3. Jeff removes 2 things I wrote from AfD: Ebony Anpu
• 4. Jeff removes the "living relatives" Header tag
• 5. Jeff removes space between __separate_ comments (in order to subvert?) calls it mild rf
• 6. Jeff, re-writing something user:DGG said, calls it "milf rf"
• 7. Jeff removes 2 user comments, user:Jarbarf & user:Captainbarrett, calls it:"move yet more procedural stuff to talk" - but _doesn't.
• 8. Jeff moves my comment
• 9."there are some new individuals who clearly don't quite get what is going on" j Keeps reinserting personal attacks, despite repeated removal. Captain Barrett 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 10."Revision as of 01:29, 14 February 2007Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Revert. First, all comments below the red line. Second, AfD discussions are not required to be neutral - articles are.)" - removes more comments by me on AfD (reinserted by _other_ editor).
• 11. Current revision (13:27, 14 February 2007) Jeffrey O. Gustafson- removes picture again!
• 12) Revision as of 11:09, 14 February 2007 Daniel.Bryant (rm del image): Removes Ebony's picture citing "rm del image" with _no_ precedent.
• 13) After AfD has run it's course with all appearence of "Keep", Jeff relists as AfD. Captain Barrett 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question:

Wern't you asked to recuse yourself from this AfD? Captain Barrett 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And the only administrative recusal is in the decision making. I will not decide this AfD (which I technically could not anyway because I initiated the new AfD). I will not stop commenting where I see fit. Complain to whoever you wish. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't done anything wrong according to every single admin that has reviewed my actions. You are invited to continue complaining about me ad nauseum wherever and as loudly as you want. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "I would appreciate it if you could keep your tone more civil, this is simply a project. The logs show you cursing, saying things like "cry baby" and "complainer," I am making honest observations while you seem to be attempting to slur me. Captain Barrett 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly used naughty words, but I have never said "crybaby" nor "complainer" (that'll keep him busy, heh). And you misuse slur, but I reckon you mean it to say that I'm trying to make you look bad. To be perfectly honest, you are doing a pretty good job of doing that yourself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]