Is JzG a vandal? Options

[Heat]

Len Stirling is a well known former politician in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He was leader of the Liberal Party in the province in the 1980s and, as such, served as Leader of the Opposition in the Newfoundland legislature.

I was surprised, therefore, to find that there was no article on him in Wikipedia and even more surprised that to find that there used to be an article but it was deleted without so much as an AfD by JzG. His rationale?

"G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: No sources, disparaging of another living individual, no evidence of actual notability."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=edit&redlink=1

Fortunately, there's a mirror of the article here: http://dictionary.sensagent.com/len+stirling/en-en/

Now JzG appears to be right that the article requires sources (but wrong in claiming there were none) but that's easily fixed. But he's dead wrong when he says it was an "attack page", there is no personal attack on the subject in it and absolutely wrong when he says there is "no evidence of actual notability". Stirling was the leader of the opposition for heaven's sake.

Does JzG just go around deleting perfectly fixable articles on a whim or is he a vandal?

This post has been edited by Heat: Thu 5th May 2011, 6:42pm

[Abd]

Does JzG just go around deleting perfectly fixable articles on a whim or is he a vandal?

Closer to the first. JzG has whim. Acts. Then defends it to the end. You could try asking him to undelete the page or userfy it.

He might even do it. But I do suggest not holding your breath. You could also go to DRV. It works, normally. JzG's actions do not stand up to scrutiny, but mostly he's able to avoid any sort of neutral scrutiny. That's what I just took to ArbComm, JzG activity in banning editors, and they first moved the request from Clarification to Amendment (it wasn't an amendment request), then it was deleted, with no sign that any arb actually read it. Yeah, apparently, deleted, responses and all. Not archived to case Talk as is normal.

Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

(The request should have been copied to the talk page for the case)

I think I'll fix it. I like fixing things. I'll report back what happens.

Okay, did it, and self-reverted. Let's see who finds this first. While, if someone is afraid that I didn't copy exactly, consider this: it would totally wreck my plan if I monkey with content, either with a self-reversion or with what I did in the edit. I'd be punishing those who cooperate with me (i.e., someone who accepts the edit by reverting it back in). It's easy to check that this was accurate, but probably not worth the effort, my advice.

While I might make a mistake, so too can an arbitration clerk, as obviously happened here.

This post has been edited by Abd: Sat 7th May 2011, 1:46pm