User talk:Rfwoolf/Archive 1

Re: Anal stretching article

I think the AfD speaks for itself. If you want to recreate a well-sourced relevant article on the topic there is nothing to stop you. If you want to try getting the old one undeleted, try deletion review. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to AMA Request

Hello Rfwoolf, I'm Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) and I'll be your advocate for your case: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf.

[Nice but lengthy welcome note from Dfrg.msc removed for relevance. Hope that's okay. Rfwoolf 14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)]

Secondly, I see what you want to do, unfortunately I can't see what it looked like before and subsequently why it was deleted. However, what I could discern from the Deletion article was that:

• Read like a how-to guide
• It was unverifiable
• It was unsourced POV
• It was a howto and a place for dicdefs

Positively:

• Subject matter did not come into question
• "Legitimate concept that needs to be referenced"
• Could be referenced properly

I've no idea about these actions:

The user Guy (JzG) said the deletion was for valid reason, but that I am free to recreate the article so long as it is properly referenced, etc. So I begun to redo the article, but it was then promptly deleted by Guy (JzG) and locked from recreation!

But it doesn't matter. I have had previous dealings with JzG before. He is not unreasonable. I understand that you can't edit the article, but it shows promise. What I suggest you do is construct the article here or in a test page, and then upon completion take it to JzG. If it is decent article then I'm sure he will unlock the page so you can paste it in.

If you have any questions, just ask me at my talk page. Regards, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is my response, as posted on Dfrg.msc's user talk page:

Re: AMA Re: Anal Stretching

Hi Dfrg.msc, thank-you for your response to my AMA issue, as posted on my talk page. Note for starters that the history of the Anal Stretching article has been made available thanks to my concerns, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anal_stretching&action=history (you can find this link on the Deletion Review page in the Anal Stretching node)

Your suggestion about the article being locked for recreation, that I recreate the article on my usertalk page and then call Guy to review it, is rather problematic. Firstly, Wikipedia should be a collaborative effort, and it is unfair to ask me to rebuild an article from scratch all by myself, and, if you review the history of the article before it was up for deletion orginally, you will see that it was never that bad at all, in fact only 1 paragraph in the entire article could even be accused of being a how-to guide, and as for the bad referencing, I think it just needed to have a small referencing cleanup -- I was all for amendment as opposed to deletion.
Let me conclude with these two points and please let me know your response:

• Surely Guy's decision to lock the article from recreation is unfair -- I remain fully reasonable and don't think I abused the recreation process -- but if I did I was unawares. The article should be unlocked so that multiple users can try recreate the article, not just me. When the article was up for deletion debate, at least one user said that Anal Stretching seems like a legit concept that could be referenced properly, i.e. the article should exist, just properly.
• Aside from the recreation lock being unilateral and inappropriate, I would value your opinion -- looking at how the article looked before deletion -- on whether there was good grounds to delete the article to begin with. Maybe I am ignorant on deletion policy, but I currently insist the article just needed to be amended, not deleted, even if it was left as a stub. Deletion is a lazy solution to an article problem, and it seems that many admins are just amendment-lazy, and deletion-happy. It seems some admins may be offended by the subject matter of the article -- Guy is a significant christian -- and he made a comment to another admin that "he just wanted to see the article deleted". What do you think? Maybe you can help me understand why the article needed to be deleted instead of amended. There is even a wiki template that says "this article is being cleaned up to comply with deletion debate"

That said, I thank you for your input whenever you are ready.

I am in no mood to re-research an article that was nearly good before it was deleted. That's just stupid.
Rfwoolf 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll thank you for being highly professional about this. It will make the process run much more smoothly. You remind me of me when I first joined, I really wanted to give it to those deletion-happy or as I once said: "trigger-happy deletionists". And I didn't get very far. I learnt my first and hardest lesson: Wikipedia is not a democracy.

However, I have to agree with you. You raise valid points which deserve to be answered:

• Wikipedia is a collaberative effort and ideally, everyone should be able to edit it.
• I have viewed the article and although is was not perfect, it seemed decent enough (better by far, than most articles out there).
• Guy's decision to lock the article from recreation seems unfair, though talking to him may shed some light.
• I see no reason for the article not to exist (first though, it needs work).
• I'd hope that Guy's religion would not influence his decision, and I have confidence that it didn't.
• It does not matter that the article was deleted, it can be remade very easily. Just view the source and copy it into the new article.
• You'll find that there is no need to re-research the article, most all of it can be salvaged.

Also, with your permission I would like to get Guy involved in this.

Regards, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a response from guy at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is another response from guy at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf. By the by, nice userpage. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that:

• The article is recreated (using any means and material) in user space.
• Guy and my self will review the article, and make recommendations to the quality and correct content.
• Upon being approved the article is re-instated (with new article) and the page is unlocked.
• The case is closed.

Would this be acceptable to both parties? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And THIS is a how-to guide?

Welcome everyone, to the first exposé on the deletion-happy tendancies of admins. In this case the user Guy ^{I am self-censoring this -- even though this piece has received no attention from Guy, it nonetheless is admittably slightly inaccurate. It wasn't only Guy that saw the below piece as a how-to guide, but rather a handful of silly admins. Guy was however guilty of protecting the article from recreation unilaterally, without warning, and is being hard-assed about unprotecting it over a month later. Guy, if you're reading this, try not unilaterally censor/delete, but rather inform me of your objection, and I'll amend it accordingly. But for now, it's not libel, it's fact.} is very certain that the following reads like a how to guide and therefore was up for deletion instead of amendment. Instead, what you will see, is that only one paragraph could have been accused of that, and this was even debatable! The mind BOGGLES!.

Anal stretching is a practice used by some to train relaxation of the muscles of the anus, while others may simply derive some pleasure from the practice.

While some sources indicate that it has medical benefits, it is more commonly employed as training to more easily perform various forms of receptive anal sex. Users of these techniques include those involved in graphic pornography. The most common method of stretching is the use of butt plugs. This practice is often referred to as anal dilation or anal training.

The practice became well known on the Internet thanks to the shock site Goatse.cx, which had a picture of a man stretching his anus, before the shock site's domain name was closed by the Christmas Island Internet Authority in January 2004.

[Ed's note: Now begins the paragraph that may read like a how-to guide, and even that is very debatable]

Care should be taken if attempting anal stretching because increasing the circumference of the sphincter muscle while decreasing its elasticity can lead to fecal incontinence. To minimize this risk, one must preserve the elasticity of the sphincter muscle. This is accomplished by proceeding very gradually - i.e. by inserting very small objects at first, and then over a period of months (or even years), very gradually increasing the size of objects that are inserted. Objects should also not be left in the anus for long periods of time as this will also decrease the elasticity of the sphincter. Any pain is a sign that one is proceeding incorrectly and should proceed more gradually.

"Rosebuds" are a temporary condition that can occur naturally after the anal opening has been relaxed and stretched in anal stretching. Larger rosebuds (medically termed a "prolapsed rectum") can be created by coaxing the rectum/colon out further.

Rfwoolf 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop now, please.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and use of user pages as such is forbidden. As is following other editors around to stir up trouble. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP (which you refer to) refers to the Encyclopedia articles thus:

" Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not ... "

Instead, the policy you refer to is WP:USER.

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USER#What_can_I_have_on_my_user_page.3F :

Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed.

--Do not be so self-righteous. If I raise an objection -- respond to that objection before you take harsh action such as protecting my userpage.

If for example you said

"I agree, you should be allowed to give constructive criticism on wikipedia on your talk page, but that one reference to me (Guy) I object to"

then that would be different. But make no mistake, according to the wikipolicy that I can see, my post about Deletion Review is completely valid and allowed. Now -- just try see that from my point of view, okay? And respond to it as such -- not by imposing your admin-like powers on me, but by reason, talking, explaining, justifying, especially when my actions are fully supported by WP:USER.

Oh, and unprotect my userpage.

Rfwoolf 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT !!! You also removed some absolutely harmless userboxes on my userpage that have NOTHING TO DO with WP:SOAP or WP:USER. Can you explain how the removal of those are justified, or will you restore them please!
Rfwoolf 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

I see. It seems that as an addition to the removal of your comment-analysis on Wikipedia's Deletion Review, he has protected your page from further editing. This conflict is not soon to go way without cooperation between the two of you. As an advocate, I must remain neutral, so I'd have to say that no one is right here. Perhaps your comments on your userpage were a bit too close to SOAP, and it looks to be a bit extreme that Guy locked your page.

As I said before, Guy is not unreasonable, you may, and I recommend it, just need to talk to him. Take up the issues you have raised. If you are unsatisfied with his answer, come back to me. Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I remain completely reasonable. I consulted your counsel on WP:SOAP because as far as I could see WP:SOAP refers to Encyclopedia articles (WP:USER covers userpages and that seems to allow constructive criticism on wikipedia. That is what I said in my Edit Summary when I reverted Guy's censorship -- something he should have responded to (being so reasonable -- but he didn't. Honestly, Guy hasn't been very reasonable to begin with -- which is why I came to you!
2. You forgot to mention that Guy removed all my hard work on the talk page of the Anal stretching article where I was trying to recreate the article. This was in compliance with his wishes, and yours. And you call this, reasonable? ... rather unreasonable, and unilateral if you asked me. As you are an admin I request that you immediately retriev my hard work and place it as a user-subpage.
3. Finally, if you go to my Userpage History, you will see that Guy has also removed a section with some absolutely harmless userboxes, which were NEVER even remotely in violation of WP:SOAP or WP:USER. Surely you must concede that this was wrong?
   

If Guy thinks he's reasonable, perhaps he should try harder to be, because I respond very well to reason -- these actions have been unilateral!

Rfwoolf 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The brink <- this title is ambiguous

Stepping back and disengaging from Guy and the AFD'd article would be the right response now. Continuing to make (shakey) allegations against him for doing what others (who are neutral) see as simply his adminly duties will benefit you little. Better to carefully and quietly make a case here for why such an article is warranted, and not take AFDs and those who maintain them personally. Please consider this advice. FeloniousMonk 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Well, thank-you for your input. However your input doesn't seem to acknowledge that a) Guy said I could recreate the Anal stretching article and show it to him before he'll unprotect the article -- which was also a finding of the Deletion Review (!!!) and when I put in a few hours of doing just that -- he unilaterally deletes all my work! There's no history function to allow me to restore it. Those actions were a) unilateral, b) uncalled for, c) against the advice of Deletion Review, and d) uncivil. (and unadminly).
   
2. Your input also doesn't acknowledge that Guy didn't respond to the Edit Summary on my userpage -- which argued why he should not censor my userpage. Instead of doing the adminly thing and using reason to explain why my comments should be censored, he instead unilaterally censors and protects my userpage.
   
3. I must implore you, as an admin, that if for any reason you disagree or take Guy's side, that you will respect my frustration and make some honest attempt to explain your rationale and help me out of this situation, i.e. don't be incestuous. Admins have a lot more power than normal users, and I am continuously at the mercy of admins who don't explain themselves and act unilaterally. Thank-you

Rfwoolf 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that -- if you go to my Userpage History -- you will see that Guy has also removed a section containing some harmless userboxes. I do not believe they could ever in a million years be in violation of WP:SOAP or WP:USER -- making Guy's actions even more invalid. Do you believe that Guy's behaviour has been beyond reproach? (mind you, don't actually answer that because you'd have to dig up the whole deletion review, the requests for AMA, etc etc).

Rfwoolf 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the look of it, the userbox deletion was incidental or accidental; the WP:SOAP comment presumably refers to the "Grave warning on current Wiki Policy" section. Guettarda 03:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, all this input from admins. Tell me, do you agree that my comments were in violation of WP:SOAP (which refers to articles), and do you believe my comments weren't protected by WP:USER? More over, with regard to the incidental or accidental deletion of the userboxes -- does that mean you aren't going to restore them? I'm confused. Rfwoolf 06:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP does not only reply to articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That applies to all of Wikipedia. No part of Wikipedia is a soapbox. None of it. Understand? I have reinstated the userboxes (which were simply swept up with the nonsense) and will unprotect your userpage as soon as you show that you do not intend to continue using it as a soapbox. You have been told repeatedly why the article was dleeted and what to do about it, and your continued refusal to accept this, and your imputing motives where none exist, is becoming disruptive. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology to Guy for editorializing -- only because my one comment was prejudicial -- I do not have proper evidence at this time that Guy deleted my work on Anal stretching talkpage -- although I don't have any other suspects at the time. I retract my prejudicial statement with apologies.

• This is among the most stupid things you have said in respect of this dispute, which gives it some pretty stiff competition. The idea of suspects for deletion is patently ludicrous, it's in the deletion log linked from the "We don't have an article" screen. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP (which you refer to) refers to the Encyclopedia articles thus: " Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not ... " Instead, the policy you refer to is WP:USER. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USER#What_can_I_have_on_my_user_page.3F : "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed". --Do not be so self-righteous. If I raise an objection -- respond to that objection before you take harsh action such as protecting my userpage. If for example you said "I agree, you should be allowed to give constructive criticism on wikipedia on your talk page, but that one reference to me (Guy) I object to" then that would be different. But make no mistake, according to the wikipolicy that I can see, my post about Deletion Review is completely valid and allowed. Now -- just try see that from my point of view, okay? And respond to it as such -- not by imposing your admin-like powers on me, but by reason, talking, explaining, justifying, especially when my actions are fully supported by WP:USER. Oh, and unprotect my userpage. Rfwoolf 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading all the above comments, your edits here and elsewhere do strike me as not only crossing the line as far as WP:SOAP goes, but WP:POINT as well, as your several edits to this section's title and comments here indicate: [1], [2], [3], [4]

I'm saddened that you failed to take my simple advice to step back. Instead, it appears you're trying to fan flames, creating the User:Rfwoolf/Evidence subpage and continuing to follow Guy to his user talk page:[5] Your actions have gone beyond behavior that is simply annoying and counter-productive to become actions that are disruptive, all for an article the community has rejected on a marginal topic. And you give every indication that you are refractory and willing to expand the disruption. I strongly urge you to reconsider both my advice and your method, because the community has a finite amount of patience for those who willing disrupt the project. FeloniousMonk 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thank-you for your feedback. You didn't seem to respond to my last post to you where I complained you weren't acknowledging any other parts of this situation. You are responding to issues after the fact -- for example you are accusing me of fanning flames -- when it appears that Guy not only protected my userpages, but -- allegedly -- deleted all my work on rewriting the article on Anal Stretching which (if you look at the evidence page) was supported by at least half a dozen people. He also deleted my userboxes. So who is fanning flames?

That said I will listen to your remark about WP:SOAP as I needed an opinion about that. So you believe that my constructive criticism on wiki deletion policy qualifies as WP:SOAP, and that WP:SOAP doesn't only refer to articles (which it clearly does) and that WP:USER doesn't protect constructive criticism of wiki policies. Well! That's very interesting! -- Like I said before, respond to my previous post FIRST, please. Rfwoolf 13:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, regardless of whether you believe your actions are constructive and well-intentioned, you'd wise to disengage and work quietly on a subpage of your user space making a draft article on the topic that the community would accept; that's the best use of your time and the community's goodwill. Doing so would be a great demonstration of your good intentions and immediately defuse the situation. I really think you'd be making a mistake to continue as you have. FeloniousMonk 13:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted, if that's the case, but the burning issue is what the hell happened to my hours of work on the Anal stretching talkpage -- where did it go and why is the history hidden? Your comment that I followed Guy to his user talk page disappoints me -- how else am I to determine what happened to my work? And I was rather civil -- he wasn't very nice in his response. You keep saying I must disengage -- I have been! But when my userpage gets protected and my work gets deleted and any response is criticised by you, it's not great. I have to find out who removed my work -- the sooner I know, the sooner I can do something about. As for Guy protecting my userpage -- I'm busy getting feedback from other admins on what they think because I am reasonable and appreciate their feedback. Your feedback -- with respect -- is very selective and seems to see nothing from my point of view, and as a minor point, ignores the history of this debacle. Rfwoolf 13:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to respond to this: you'd wise to disengage and work quietly on a subpage of your user space making a draft article on the topic that the community would accept -- but that's exactly what I was doing -- you didn't know that? It was deleted: Anal stretching talkpage -- and I need to get it back. Why should I re-rewrite an article from scratch? Efforts should now be on retrieving my deleted article. Rfwoolf 13:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The original article was rejected by the community, and it wasn't your article. Retrieving the deleted article is simply not on. If you're really interested in seeing an article on that topic included in wikipedia, starting fresh is your best bet, and looking at all the effort you've expended going after Guy, you could have written it three times over. So, working quietly on a new version in your user space is what you should do moving forward, and put any perceived past slights behind you. FeloniousMonk 13:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully: I did start afresh, I spent hours rewriting the article from scratch by first getting sources from google. Please believe me, I did start from fresh. I put all my work on the Anal stretching talkpage -- and someone deleted it. Please acknowledge that you understand that I did start writing the article afresh because your above post does not! Rfwoolf 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• What part of subpage of your user space were you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 13:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for communicating. Why does it have to be my userpage? I wanted it to be a collaborative effort and I don't see what's wrong with putting my work on the Anal stretching talkpage. (Not that I expect you to reply, you're pretty good at not explaining things, just re-iterating things -- but think you for keeping the lines of communication open) Rfwoolf 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Woolf, I have been communicating all along. What I'm waiting for is the moment you start listening. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(--So, why does it have to be my userpage?)

What if we hit pause for a moment and stop filming and talk about the so-called 'Way Forward'. I started giving up on you unSALTing the Anal stretching article so I started giving in to the proposal that I rewrite the article from scratch as a way forward. Then I discover all my hours of work has been removed. So now what is the way forward?

Then of course there's the other issue of you having locked my userpage. You have not really given me a way-forward and I have to wonder if you are trying to provoke me in some way. I still believe that a constructive criticism of 1 wikipolicy should be allowed in my user talk page. Now, is your beef that it's SOAP, or is your beef that it mentions you once? As a way forward:

• First prize: Will you unlock my userpage and restore my constructive criticism if I remove all references to you?
• Second prize: Will you unlock my userpage if I promise not to repost the constructive criticism?
  

(Don't you think you should have responded to my Edit Summary saying why I didn't by SOAP and convinced me of otherwise instead of throwing your toys and locking?)

So... I'm listening. Rfwoolf 14:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're posturing. There is a difference. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Editorialising other people's comments

This [6] is completely unacceptable. Don't EVER do that. Never editorialise other people's comments, ever. Not to anybody. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology to Guy for editorializing -- only because my one comment was prejudicial -- I do not have proper evidence at this time that Guy deleted my work on Anal stretching talkpage -- although I don't have any other suspects at the time. I retract my prejudicial statement with apologies. Rfwoolf 14:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

--I guess I get carried away on my usertalk page, wouldn't dream of doing that type of editorializing anywhere else on Wikipedia. I am retracting those edits. Rfwoolf 14:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. You can actually get along. Wikipedia is a learning environment, Guy, thank you for your patience. Rfwoolf, thank you for your good learning attitude. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I deleted the Talk page because there's no corresponding article, and there was nothing in the Talk page that made it an exception to the normal rules for speedy deletion. Also, a Talk page isn't the place to recreate an article that has been deleted after an AfD. The material that you left on my Talk page clearly states that the proper place is at User:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching (nor do the links seem to lead to pages where anyone else suggests that the article's Talk page should be used for that purpose).

Moreover, I can see no sign that you were in fact rebuilding the article on the Talk page. I saw a lot of snide remarks about Wikipedia, its editors, admins, policies, etc., and a long list of numbered comments of various kinds, all added by you. If you really believe that this topic is of such importance that it demands an article in an encyclopædia, and if you think that it can be written within Wikipedia guidelines, then go ahead — preferably offline, but at the above page in your User space if you've nowhere else to write it. Then you can ask if it's OK to move it to article space, and if it is, an admin will do it for you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Moreover, I can see no sign that you were in fact rebuilding the article on the Talk page. "
--That's not fair. I spent quite a few hours sorting through various sources and you should clearly see my references and notes: first-prize sources, second-prize sources etc. I was in fact making an attempt to rebuild the article. Rfwoolf 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "first-prize sources, second-prize sources etc.", but I see that someone else has provided the article for you anyway. If you want your notes at the talk page, I can do that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me do a bit of editing to the content -- cos I'm gonna go crazy if another admin deletes it citing G4 all because I didn't put up a template saying "Major rewrite in progress" -- or something to stop them -- or implore them to stop etc. and then sure, I'd like that. Thanks. Rfwoolf 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the message telling you that the rticle had been placed in your user space? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. I was trying not to attract too much attention to the fact -- because I'm worried it would be G4d or something. Rfwoolf 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As long s it's in your user space and clearly marked as under development, you should be OK. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Derena's helpme tag

Hi, he (User Talk:Derena) e-mailed me asking if I'm one of the charged ones here and said that he had a few questions. After that I had no contact with him, so, that help template wasn't added by mistake and hasn't asked what he was wondering about. Bye for now, --Bahar (Spring in Turkish) ✍ 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[Moved Bahar's post to its own section] Rfwoolf 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When I removed the {{helpme}} tag I added a note to the user saying "Hi, what can I help you with" (It's arguably not advised to leave {{helpme}} tags up for too long because they attract attention and are suppoesd to be removed as soon as someone comes to help -- which was technically you, and me) . Since this could be a language thing, I will recommend that you specifically add a post offering help -- if you have not done so already. Thanks for the response. Rfwoolf 10:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Response from Dfrg.msc

I now have read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rfwoolf. No, I'm not an admin, as you previously thought, but be assured that that does not at all effect any of my ability to function effectively on Wikipedia. Being an admin (as you aspire to be) is essentially janitorial duties for Wikipedia. As an advocate, it is imperative that I do not take sides. I do however, love taking them, which is not to say that I always do. I practice a more "selective neutrality".

I have been busy, and the only thing stopping me from "counseling you properly" is the huge amount of sorted reading that I have to do to keep on top of what is actually happening. Look as far and wide as you can for support if you feel that it will help you. I'm going to keep trudging though and once I have a full understanding of the situation, talk to Guy. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 10:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you keep making good edits to this: User talk:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching article, I see no reason for it to be deleted. Upon review it may be reinstated. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your response. I agree that there is a fair amount of reading that is necessary to stay 100% up to speed. What is currently disturbing me is not so much the Anal Stretching rewrite (which I hope to finish someday) but rather that my userpage has been protected, and the very bad etiquette involved (see the Edit Summaries on my USER page) by protecting before responding to my defense -- that WP:USER governs user talk pages and fully supports constructive criticism on Wikipedia. That's what's troubling me, that Guy is apparently abusing his admin powers. It was not part of your AMA mandate to help me with that, but if you can, see what you can do. It also helps having you as a witness -- whether I'm in the right or (somehow) actually in the wrong over that issue -- at least you are on some level: watching. Rfwoolf 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Watching I am. At least Guy has given you back your user boxes. If you think that anyone is abusing their power or privilege then you should take it up with them, and if you are unsatisfied, refer it to a higher power. I will remain neutral; however I will say that you are both :

• Entitled to have a free and editable User page (upon condition)

and

• Entitled to make constructive criticism on any subject (upon condition and within reason)

It is late for me, I am tired and will soon depart. I will pick this up in the morning. Regards, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. My philosophy in remaining neutral which has not proven really effective for you. However, it has not proven effective for Guy either, keeping the process fair and un-bias. Look to the new resolution. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Total Resolution Proposal

There are many issues still in conflict and with a bit of co-operation, they can all be resolved at once.

1. Restoration of the Article: Anal Stretching

Rfwoolf will be allowed to continue to edit this User talk:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching uninterrupted and without persecution. It will not be deleted or degraded in anyway.

Upon completion, the article will be reviewed by myself and Guy. Pending that, the article will be restored.

Discussion/Comments:

• Agreement from Rfwoolf:
• Agreement from Guy:
• Agreement from Dfrg.msc: I agree to these terms. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Un-protection of Rfwoolf's Userpage

Rfwoolf's Userpage will be unlocked when Rfwoolf meets these condition(s):

• As specified by Guy

Discussion/Comments:

1. Guy removes wikipolicy section on my userpage citing WP:SOAP. Onus is on Rfwoolf to either comply, or justify the inclusion of the section according to WP:SOAP or another wikipolicy.
2. Rfwoolf puts back wikipolicy section citing that WP:SOAP refers to encyclopedia articles only. Onus is on Guy to either accept, or if he disagrees then to revert and cite WP:SOAP or cite a different wikipolicy.

• It was at this point that Guy (not even reverting once) just reverted and protected the page. Onus is on guy to justify his actions - he cites WP:SOAP

So it is clear at this stage that Guy jumped the gun and was acting unilaterally, and uncivilly.

1. Rfwoolf then communicated with him, clearly arguing why WP:SOAP refers to articles (and not userpages) and how WP:USER clearly protects constructive criticism of wikipedia on a userpage. Onus is on Guy to take note, and either agree, or respond arguing (in this case) why WP:USER does not protect my comments. Guy fails to do so.

So it is clear at this stage that Guy has not been open to properly justifying his harsh actions with wikipolicy. He has totally ignored Rfwoolf's citing of WP:USER and refused to make comment about this protective piece of wikipolicy.

Rfwoolf 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agreement from Rfwoolf:
• Agreement from Guy:
• Agreement from Dfrg.msc: I agree to these terms. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Case Closed

The case will be closed. My official part in the events regarding the Anal stretching article and interaction between Rfwoolf and Guy will be over.

Discussion/Comments:

• Agreement from Rfwoolf:
• Agreement from Guy:
• Agreement from Dfrg.msc: I agree to these terms. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Understand

This article got a prod and was deleted. He has created article in past. After tonight's prod and delete, the article was recreated again. I believe language differences may play into this. This user needs an editor to shepherd in the article creation process. I don't know if the templates for creating an article and playing in the sandbox will help. His statement on the article seemed like a cry for help if I ever saw one. Ronbo76 06:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the entire history of the article. I have made the following conclusions:

• According to the log history of the article, it has never been deleted (if an article has been deleted and then recreated, its deletion history can be found by clicking on View logs of this page on the article's history page.
  
• The article has had the prod tag added and taken away and re-added (although 20 days apart).
  
• The user User:Bakasuprman when he removed the {{prod}} tag noted "rm prod, hes notable indo-nostalgic writer" (although this does not necessarily make him right) (So at least one advanced wikipedian believes in this articles notability -- although this must obviously be supported by correct citations)
  
• Google has ~666 hits for Moncy Pothen, and ~13400 hits for his book Beneath the Clouds and Coconut Leaves including a listing of his book on Amazon.com ^{Note that the article in question is about the author Moncy Pothen and not the book Beneath the Clouds and Coconut Leaves}
• The article has not yet been put up for deletion review (ever).
• My advice is as follows (in this order):

1. First find a decent reference to him and his book Beneath the Clouds and Coconut Leaves -- like the amazon one which is apparently commercial. Why can't we use the Amazon.com link as a reference? (Surely that doesn't count as a commercial link?) Perhaps we can find a listing of the book on the ISBN?
   
2. Check carefully if nothing has been published mentioning this author: perhaps a newspaper article reviewing his book.
   
3. Once theses above attempts have been properly made, if you still feel the article does not meet notability requirements, file for AfD (Articles for Deletion).
   

What do you think? Rfwoolf 07:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head - mine.

Maybe I have just seen the prods but I honestly thought his articles had been deleted. I do not know if a good reference for the book exists. I could never find it. Based upon the edits, I honestly thought they were WP:COI especially with the links to an amazon order site. One of the things I noticed while on vandal patrol that caught my attention back when (as in when the alert light came on), was all the edits came from a nribooks - that looked like maybe the publisher trying to create a market in my mind combined with all the edits coming from one user with no references.

I am reluctant to do the AfD. I've been down that road and some senior editors seem to have put my feet to the fire for all my efforts. For the same reason, I have gone off vandal patrol and only protect the 493 pages on my watchlist. Ronbo76 07:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some where on your page I saw the following:

• Proposal
• I propose that:

• The article is recreated (using any means and material) in user space.
• Guy and my self Some other editor will review the article, and make recommendations to the quality and correct content.

Those would be my recommendations for this situation. If the author is legit, nribooks needs some editor to help get the article published. However, the big caveat is that nribook cannot make all the edits. It should be created on the userpage as a sandbox entry and then developed by a guardian angel editor. Ronbo76 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recommendation about the article being recreated in user space is not advisable while the article still exists and is not currently in AfD or is not currently deleted. There are two issues with the article: Notability and Verifiability. The correct step is to see if there are any good references (I think the author's official site at least verifies on some level) but most importantly we need to find notability -- and I don't think we can. I have asked the article's main contributor (Nribooks) for some published references -- and in the meantime you can motion for Afd, advising that we might give the article a few days for people to find some good source for notability. Rfwoolf 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just been looking through google to find any published references to either the book or to the author -- and I can't seem to find any. I've visited a few English-language Indian newspapers and nothing comes up under the author's name, and I've also searched the New York Times. The book certainly exists, which gives some hope for the article Beneath the Clouds and Coconut Leaves but doesn't give much hope for the author.

I believe we need to ask a wise wikipedian if an amazon.com listing of the book (as well as ISBN numbers) that mention the author of the book as being Moncy Pothen -- is a good enough reference to make the author notable? I believe that it may not, and that only a published reference to the author itself -- such as a newspaper review -- would do that. But then there's the question of whether published references to the author in a foreign-language is acceptable, because I believe there is one on his website. Let me see what enquiries I can make. If there are no decent references to the author, I'm sure we can go to AfD (but the article on the book itself might notmake it there). Rfwoolf 07:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Every thing that has been said here is pretty much why I asked for the helpme for this individual. It is going to take someone smarter than me to figure out what if any thing makes the author notable. I can do internet searches that usually find good references about most topics but with this one, as someone else said, most hits link back here or to other mirror sites.

One of the problems that we have with foreign countries is that their information does not receive hits like here in American or that somehow it does make the search engines' notable hit list. It would be a shame if this individual is notable in his country and we as Americans miss the notability factor because of the way information is recorded, reported and factored into web hits. I have seen this trend in AfD debates. Foreign articles usually lose. It will take a wiseman to figure this one out. Ronbo76 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My helpme tag

Hi Rfwoolf, thanks for replying. I created an account over at Wiki Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/ earlier today using the same "Sarayuparin" login name. I don't know what happened, but I cannot access my account. It's possible that I fouled up the password. If there is a question of authenticating that I am the same Sarayuparin at Commons, my Talk page points to my Wikipedia Talk page. Do you know who I should contact about this? I could not find information about this sort of thing in the Help pages. I would imagine that there would be some sort of single sign-on for all of the Wikimedia projects. Thanks. Sarayuparin 16:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarayuparin.

I'm sorry to hear about your problem.

1. Apparently, your user account is not uniform throughout all of wikimedia, i.e. if you create an account on en.Wikipedia.org, you do not have the same account on commons.wikimedia.org
2. The help page that deals with login problems on commons.wikimedia.org is HERE

Unfortunately it states:

If you enter an e-mail address when signing up for the account, or in your Preferences, you can request on the login screen for a temporary password to be sent to that address, which will allow you to retrieve your account. If you did not enter an e-mail address, or the address was out of date, you will have to create a new account.

So, if you signed up with an email address, then you can simply retrieve your password, but, if you didn't sign up with an email address, you will need to create a new account.

My advice is to first do your best to see if you can remember your password. It is for this reason that they ask you to enter your password twice when you create an account. One common mistake is that users leave CAPS lock on. If you really cannot remember your password, and you don't want to create another account, then your next option is to talk to a user on wikicommons that has access to the database and may be able to help you verify your account. I wasn't yet able to find someone that's just right for that, but here is the talk page of an admin: NielsF who may be able to help you out. (You can send him a message on his talk page without having an account)
If I find someone better I will let you know
good luck. Rfwoolf 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Just be cautious in your use of your user page. No personal attacks, no advocacy. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, I saw the request on Guys page. Speaking of advocacy, Woolf, Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf needs some attention in regards to the proposal. Олахо! Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Woolf, you have restored the soapboxing pretty much intact and you are still making the baseless claim of unilateral salting when actually I undeleted the history for review, and salting was endorsed by that review (it was Trialsanderrors who then re-deleted the history). Mistakes are forgivable, but wilfully perpetuating a falsehood after its been pointed out to you numerous times looks a great deal like trolling. Fix it, please. Now. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: In Edit Summary, User:Guy has called me a Toss blanket. <-- Personal attack? All this time before you have complained about WP:SOAPboxing, which was overturned by User:Jossi because my constructive criticism ony my own userpage was protected by WP:USER. In this post of yours, it is the first time you are complaining to me about personal attacks on my userpage. If you stop and point out the personal attacks and ask me to remove them and I promise to do so so long as they count as personal attacks. Rfwoolf 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I will remove the claim that he WP:SALTed unilaterally. It must be stressed though that constructive criticism about wikipedia is allowed by WP:USER. You cannot make a general claim of soapboxing and expect me to just delete the whole criticism. Rfwoolf 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the first request you are making to remove that part of the article (other than a general deletion of the whole article claiming WP:SOAP). Thank-you for being specific, constructing your argument on reason and fairness.

I will be fixing that reference on my userpage. Rfwoolf 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That reference to you has been fixed. Rfwoolf 06:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a small section of your user page since it was a personal attack. I recommend you tone-down the soapboxing on your page or more drastic steps may be taken. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You have removed a small section to my userpage which I didn't really object to you removing, but, I don't see how it is a personal attack because it says that some admins are trigger-happy deletionists. If you want me to reword that, I will?

Secondly, please do not make a general claim of Soapboxing, because general constructive criticism about Wikipedia is allowed by WP:USER. If you disagree with something 'specifically, please refer to the part of the post you disagree with, instead of the whole article whose purpose WP:USER I believe protects Rfwoolf 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is now. Please drop the anal stretching subject for a while. Let things cool off, collect your research, find good sources and you can attempt a new article in a few months. Learning the presidents and policies in the meantime will help you build a better article that can survive an AFD.

You may see the beginnings of my rewrite here. And it has been over a month since the article was deleted.

On a side note: The freedom of speech is not a requirement that people listen to you. No-one is obliged to give you a soapbox to yell from. The right to own private property is important too, and because of them wikipedia gets to say what can and can't be said on it's computers. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted. Do you think I disagree or something? Constructive criticism on wikipedia (which is allowed by WP:USER can oftentimes help improve wikipedia by pointing out problems (real or perceptual). So my constructive criticism I still believe should be 100% allowed (until such time as WP:USER changes), and obviously personal attacks and libel are not allowed, and that is mentioned in numerous wikipolicies including WP:USER, and that is why I have complied with that request. Can you see how reason and logic and specifics has been used to enact justice? As opposed to when Guy just protected my userpage complaining of general WP:SOAP? I clearly showed him the wikipolicy which jusitifed the post he had censored. Guy failed to use reason and logic and specifics to demonstrate why WP:USER doesn't protect my post, which is the very reason it was unprotected by User:Jossi. As soon as guy used reason and logic and specifics about a personal attack against him, I complied :D Rfwoolf 07:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

“ I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. ” — Woodrow Wilson

28th President of the United States

Thank-you for your extremely constructive feedback. :( Rfwoolf 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrator?

Rfwoolf, if you want to be an administrator someday (as it says on your user page), I strongly suggest you tone down the rhetoric on your user page, including the silly attacks on Guy, who was trying to help you. Just some friendly advice. Users who come here and carry on and on when they don't get their way don't end up administrators. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference claiming that Guy unilaterally SALTed the article. Even though the more I think about it, the more I see that he only protected the page to stop me from trying to fix the article in the mainspace, and this wasn't properly endorsed by the AfD, so call it a misunderstanding or what, I do believe he technically did protect unilaterally, and he should ultimately unprotect the page to allow other uses to make an attempt at rewriting the article.

As for your comments, I do appreciate the civil tone, even though you may not be well versed on this entire debacle. Rfwoolf 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, that constructive criticism about Wikipedia in a userpage is protected by WP:USER.
WP:SOAP constantly refers to articles (not userpages). Obviously, personal attacks or libel are another matter, and this is pointed out on WP:USER, and that is why I am complying with all proper requests on that matter. Rfwoolf 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty good example of what not to do. So yes, a lot of administrators are lazy and are prone to just want to delete is not an appropriate way to talk about other users (even if you're not naming them specifically).

WP:NOT can apply to userpages as well - see WP:NOT#Blog. If you intend to use your userpage to attack the project or attack classes of users (even without naming them), you're going to continue to run into trouble. My strongest advice to you is this: Stop trying to use the rules to protect your user page content. If other users are telling you they find it objectionable, be a team player and take it down. Wikilawyering will just build up ill will. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your response to the comments on my discussion page. As you no doubt gathered, I'm very bitter about an article I had initiated and was activly working on improving. Unfortunatly within days of its creation it was nominated for deletion despite my requests for help. Absolutly no creative criticism was offered, only a discussion of deletion despite daily improvements. So as you see, I'm bitter. I once was a gnome. Now I'm a troll. Really not a far fall.--Sand Squid 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Requesting your opinion

Sorry, but I feel a little under-qualified to give an opinion. Prima facie, JzG's actions seem to fall in a gray area between proper and improper administrative actions (in that policy text is not clear on the issues). He's been an administrator for a long time now, though, and probably knows what he's doing: he at least knows more than I. Given all this, I don't feel so inclined to get involved. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA Case

Hey, Rfwoolf, making progress I see. A response awaits you at you know where. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Empathy

Now I know how you feel, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian (street artist). All my articles. It'll be the death of this place. Dfrg.msc 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Man woolf, when you respond, 'you respond. Thanks for your input, it's like what happend with your article, I want them all to stay so the can be freely edited, and if the same effort was put into improving them as deleting them..... Grhh. Anyway, how goes Anal Stretching? Dfrg.msc 02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Resp

You forgot to sign, but I knew it was you just by looking at the contents box.

Ok. Woolf I'm going to need a day to work this information over. I don't have the time right now, but I can give you this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint about JzG. What do you want me to do with this? If Guy has been acting inappropriately, you should make appropriate actions. If you've done something to provoke this however, expect scrutiny.

I'll be in touch soon, Dfrg.msc 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Locking my userpage was inappropriate for starters - the admin that unlocked it did so without even consulting Guy because he knew it was wrong to censor me like that. Then there's the personal attacks. Talk to you later Rfwoolf 06:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. A locking of a User page should be used as a last resort. And the personal attacks. I'm sure there's motive in there somewhere.

Good luck bringing the article back, you'll have my support.

AfD is a bit shoddy, if you look at it. Every article is too unique to umbrella classify, and the amount of effort going into deleting some articles far outweighs thats trying to improve them. The only pure thing nowdays is Vandal Fighting. I'm going Vandal Fighting. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 08:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

A copy of the old article has been restored

User:Rfwoolf/Anal_stretching, as requested. Now all I have to say is keep a cool head - Yep, WP is a bureaucratic nightmare at times, but quite often that's also a good thing. =) Also, I restored this as a User: page but only because you requested that; You probably want to move this to User talk: namespace before you start actually working on the new version of the article. When and if the history is restored, it's nice to have talk pages as talk pages. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your work, and thank-you for your advice. I have moved the text to a user talk namespace based upon your advice. Rfwoolf 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)