Long time listener, first time caller.
So
here we have an AfD on Erica Hardwick, an ex-neonazi, now anti-neonazi political player. We can already see where there might be potential for controversy.
Will nominates an AfD, saying "not notable, WP:BIO, etc, etc". Grue notes that Will previously trashed the vast majority of the article, and to now propose it for deletion as a stub of someone not notable, no secondary sources, etc, might be a bit ... "odd".
I chime in, agreeing, and get into a nice argument where Will insists I made a mistake, demands that I apologize for it, saying the diffs shown as misleading as they "don't mention intervening edits", despite the fact that the intervening edit consists of someone claiming to be the subject saying "If you're going to write about me, don't write lies" and otherwise blanking the article. He reverts, although only the first of 10 or so paragraphs are included in his reversion. "Stubbifying".
He then makes the leap of logic that because he "restored a blanked page", how could anyone
possibly accuse him of deleting content, that such a thing is nonsensical, because his revision "adds" to the page. The fact that the revision immediately before the subject's blanking had near 800 words and now after his good work has less than 200 doesn't strike him as "removing content".
Shortly thereafter, the "subject" or at least the same IP trashes all references to court transcripts, reputable newspapers. Utterly ignorant, or rather, indifferent to this, Will continues to stamp around sounding "show me sources, show me notability", completely ignoring attempts to point said things out to him in multiple replies.
Seemingly running out of arguments, he resorts to "this is stale, because those edits happened a year ago".
This post has been edited by Achromatic: Mon 17th December 2007, 11:12pm
Will_Beback and Language Comprehension, Apparently trashing the majority of an article as part of a revert /is
Mon 17th December 2007, 11:10pm
