User talk:Obuibo Mbstpo

Proposal of marriage

Please do not add nonsense to articles as you did to proposal of marriage. this is a serious project not for people who just want to be funny. (oh and your talkpage is in an article cateogory, those should be added to article pages). --87.112.65.25 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion vs blanking

Hi, please could you explain why you'd never !vote delete, but you'd be happy to have a page blanked? What about children's prank pages - "billy is gay"? I can understand the anti-deletionist attitude up to a certain point, but I get lost here. Kind regards, Dan Beale-Cocks 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Black Kite 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Obuibo Mbstpo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite 01:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Obuibo Mbstpo

My mistake, his hometown was Katagum. I read Things Fall Apart not that long ago, and must have had Umuofia on the brain. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources that confirm the existence of this person? And, while you're at it, would you mind addressing the other reasons for your block? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, let me try to find it again. Um, what other reasons are you talking about? Oh, that thing with the marriage proposal article? I suppose I probably should have said, "A common joke is that..." or left it out entirely. D'oh! Well, I guess this is as good a time as any to call it a night, I don't seem to be on a roll here. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh good! I found it.

• Mbstpo, Anna (2007). That Could Never Happen. Ajuba.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

The title will probably raise your suspicions as well, but it's a reference to his response when his American friends used to (constantly) forward him scam emails and tease him about embezzling money from the Nigerian government. The book was written by his sister as a tribute to him. You should read it sometime, it's a pretty interesting biography. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ISBN? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also that not only does Google find no evidence of anybody named Obuibo Mbstpo, but shows no evidence of anybody with the last name Mbstpo (including Anna). This obviously isn't itself conclusive, given the state of Nigeria's internet connectivity, but the evidence is kind of piling on. In any event, I await the ISBN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One day at a time. Please don't evade the block, period.

Rule 0, Mbstpo. You would never be blocked for Rule 0 violation, and the essay says why. There have to be excuses. You gave them the excuses. However, we'll see. As usual, your actions raise "issues." You were blocked for a collection of actions, this time. Almost all the actions were legitimate, clearly, though protested vigorously. A case can be made that it was the protests against your actions that were disruptive. What remains is minor, minor enough that a warning would ordinarily be considered adequate response. Or just some laughter. Apparently some editors are short on the laughing department.

You had a long editing history with no warnings that I've seen. So ... I hope you will stick around. Please do not evade the block, this time. Take care of yourself. Take a break. Do some writing, send it to me. We'll talk, you are a very, very important person and, regardless of what you do next, you have helped the world become a better place, whether they can see that or not. Some do see it.

Please do not scramble your password. --Abd (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you

I had to put up with the exact same load of bullshit about six months ago. I had hoped the community had learned from that, but sadly it has not.

People like you and I are dangerous to those who have a vested interest in the status quo, because we propose reasonable ideas that people actually like, or at least sympathize with. We will not be cowed, and so we provide a rallying point to those who have been repressed. They weren't able to eliminate me, so now they've turned their sights on you.

Hang in there--and whatever you do, don't make it worse for yourself. There's a time to be the gadfly. Unfortunately, for you, right now isn't it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to suggestion

Could I in the spirit of good faith propose a compromise. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs) is unblocked and a namespace restriction is placed on his account. He will be able to edit Mainspace, Talk, User, User talk, Image, Image talk, Category, and Category talk. He will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, Help, Help talk, MediaWiki talk, Portal, Portal talk, Template, Template talk. Newyorkbrad has made the point before that he contributes good parli pro ARTICLES and that its really the Meta stuff that makes us all cringe (at least me), so this would seem to be a compromise. MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not a particularly tenable compromise, for several reasons. I would be unable to provide input in WP:FAC and WP:AFDs in reference to my own articles; or edit WP:WPPP or Template:Cite parl, both of which I created to facilitate progress in the area of parliamentary procedure articles. But besides these problems, there is also the rather glaring fact that the block is unjustified. My votes in xfDs clearly do not fall under WP:DE or WP:POINT, which were designed to exempt such activity; my edits are within generally-accepted norms; and I haven't edit warred (I never revert a revert; I always take it to the talk page in accordance with WP:BRD, but now people are objecting to that as well, so I guess there's no way to win.) All in all, I'm a pretty good citizen, albeit not a follower. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue about the reasons for the block, but I just wanted to point out that topic bans are usually temporary. I'm sure everyone would agree to a re-evaluation, based on OM's edits while topic banned, after a period of 30 days or so. It's not like you'd never again be able to edit the stuff your created etc. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:48, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Topic ban on what? African parliamentarians and marriage-related articles? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Topic ban, meaning the "namespace restriction" MBisanz proposed above. We normally refer to such a thing as a topic ban, even when the ban isn't based on a topic per se. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:04, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would be reasonable to carve out an exception for WP:WPPP and Template:Cite parl, given that Obuibo has been doing good work there. (Those are pages that are strongly 'content' related, not the 'governance' and 'process'-type pages where Obuibo's conduct has drawn criticism.) It might also be acceptable for Obuibo to be permitted to edit other 'content'-type Wikipedia: and Template: namespace pages (and their associated talk pages)—provided he runs the pages past an admin first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The substance is correct, but a detail may be off. Admins have no special content privileges, in any space, nor should they be assigned. Yes, it's possible that the ban could have exceptions carved out of it, but can a ban be automatically enforced? I.e., is it possible to place a restriction on editing particular spaces, such that he can't impulsively violate it? In any case, these are really details. The substance of the compromise is to stop disruption, and, in fact, it doesn't matter whose fault the disruption is. I'll deal with explaining this to Mbstpo, in the unlikely event he doesn't understand it.--Abd (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) What line from policy would justify a "topic ban" from Wikipedia namespace? It seems like a case of WP:STEAM. The interesting thing is, as soon as you start not just idly making an offhand remark taking a controversial position on a matter, and then taking no action (the more common approach followed by casual Wikipedians), but start seriously working for wikireform through bold, good faith (but allowable) edits, being vocally involved in decisionmaking forums, sustaining the campaign over a period of time and publicizing it in accordance with policy (which one could reasonably argue is necessary in order to attain success; why else do we have WP:WPR, for instance?), people begin looking for an excuse to ban you (and the fact that, in this case, a ban from Wikipedia namespace is proposed is telling). So, a couple bad edits becomes a blockable offense (in this case, neglecting to source an article and typing an incorrect village name due to Freudian slip; and failing to state a fact in more encyclopedic terms, e.g. "As many marriages have historically taken place on a shotgun basis, it is often half-joking said that the most common form of marriage proposal is 'You"re what?!'." Although in retrospect I would probably leave it out due to the lack of WP:RS.) Granted, the stuff that happened under the previous accounts wasn't that great, but I thought that was forgiven.

Well, I hope an admin will lift the block, but I won't edit if you restrict me from Wikipedia namespaces because it would be pointless. You have to be able to collaborate with the community in order to be fully effective as an editor. And while TenOfAllTrades' proposal partially addresses that, there's just the simple matter of justice. It kind of like if I'm a member of an organization and the leadership says, "Well, we don't like how you vote and we don't like what you say, so while we're going to let you keep contributing in the form of dues, your rights to vote and speak in debate are suspended." Duties and privileges go together, unless there is a punishment for misconduct, which in this case hasn't occurred. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't read the bulk of this latest essay/tirade in the form of a discussion response, but to answer "What line from policy would justify a "topic ban" from Wikipedia namespace?", possibly no line. If the defendant requires an explicit line reference, he/she should restrict his/her activity to the real world outside of the institution know as Wikipedia, where lawyering is practiced and encouraged. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:24, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, it seems to me that you are here to toss gasoline on a smouldering fire, where others are trying to put it out. I respectfully suggest that you refrain from that. Your comments, in this context, are uncivil. If you don't like what anyone writes, including myself or Mbstpo, how about not reading it? What is here is not a warning dropped on your Talk page. But it will become that if continued.--Abd (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you don't like what anyone writes, including myself or Mbstpo, how about not reading it?" -- Same goes for you. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:22, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have not had the opportunity yet to communicate directly with Mbstpo, but consider the general space-ban to be reasonable temporarily. As we all know, AfDs etc. aren't about voting, and if he has a comment on an AfD to make, or the like, he can make it to any user (not canvassing, but a user who consents to such comments -- and I do), and then, if the user considers the argument cogent, the user can make it as his own, having been convinced. Likewise with any other process in WP space or the like. I do not believe that Mbstpo should have been blocked, and the compromise remedy actually suggests why, but that is all for the future. If Mbstpo accepts the space-ban, I would consider the matter non-emergency, and my experience is that these conflicts can be settled without a great deal of wikifuss. WP:DR is actually brilliant. We can then disentangle the rest at leisure. It's very difficult when people are shouting, on any side.

Mbstpo does things that bring up questions which must be addressed. It is not random noise and it is not vandalism. However, it can indeed be disruptive, and thus the point I've been making: societies must contain Rule 0 violators, but if they punish them, they ultimately die. But, as we see above, the irony of the remedy does not escape Mbstpo. He is iindef blocked for "vandalism," i.e., putting a joke (funny, actually, not offensive, and actually about something true) into article space, and allegedly creating a hoax article on Obuibo Mbstpo, also, of course, in article space, so the remedy is that he is banned from WP space so that he can edit in article space? However, Rule 0 violations always result in paradoxical responses, read the essay if you don't understand. We have WP:TROLL to cover Rule 0 violations; a very dangerous tool. I.e., if I get angry, you must be trolling! Maybe. If N people get angry, does that increase the probability that it is trolling? What if I'm doing something reprehensible, perhaps supported by N others? Who happen to be very active. Is it trolling to point this out, if it could be predicted that I and N others will make a huge fuss? And none of this makes any presumption about who is right.

It might be trolling. It might be someone's right to call another a "White Supremacist Pig." But not in certain contexts. Wrong context, the police will quite properly take you into custody, to protect you if nothing else.

Mbstpo is indeed impatient and impulsive, something that often comes from being his age (he's quite young) with his intelligence (which is formidable). So he needs some moderation. I'm not the only member of the community assisting him in finding it. His energy is invaluable, and, properly channeled, it will indeed transform Wikipedia, making it a much, much friendlier and more efficient place. Even if he never edits again, the consequences of what he has done will remain and continue to move things in a better direction. Most of this will be invisible to most editors, so don't be surprised if it is invisible to you, dear reader. But watch. The actual effects will come slowly, nobody need fear it. Unless, of course, one "stands in the doorways and blocks up the halls." But that harm, if it comes, will not come from myself or from Mbstpo. We are powerless to harm Wikipedia and its editor community, even if we wanted to, which we don't. It would come from the community, as it awakens and begins to function coherently.--Abd (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of this comes under tl;dr, but I'd just point out that anyone who makes proxy edits for a blocked or banned user is liable to be blocked themselves. Black Kite 16:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people are getting a little bit off track - what pushed me into block-supporting territory were his mainspace edits. Specifically, his vandalism to marriage proposal (which would have been enough for a short block) and his creation of apparently hoax article [[Obuibo Mbstpo00 (he still denies that this is a hoax article, and I've asked him to provide sources a couple of sections above - if he demonstrates that this subject actually exists, I'll support an unblock). He project space stuff is a pain in the ass, but it's been going on for days and nobody's blocked him until the mainspace nonsense. For that reason, I strongly oppose the proposed editing restriction as a solution for this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Basic rule: don't make rules that are unenforceable. I'm responsible for all edits I make. If a blocked user communicates to me, say by email, and gives me a suggestion, and I decide it is a good one, and I implement it, is this editing by proxy? How would you know? Because the ideas resemble those of a blocked user? How far would that get you? It's been tried, you know. Editing by proxy properly refers to editing as a meat puppet, not using one's own judgment. It's actually prohibited whether the user is blocked or not. When I followed AfDs or MfDs listed on Mbstpo's announcement page, I made my own decisions and my own comments, the only thing that he had done was to suggest that the pages might deserve attention. (His original page actually suggested a vote, and, even though that is allowed, it was not canvassing under any existing definition, I was bold enough to delete that myself, and he apparently consented to that.) If I set up a bot to go automatically post material from Mbstpo -- or anyone -- it would be a violation of policy, I'm sure. That's proxying, not being an intelligent filter who passes on only that which he considers reasonable and proper. The latter is actually the basis of social intelligence, and it happens all the time, on and off-wiki. What is it when posts are made to En-L and then are reflected in edits here? --Abd (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's enforceable via common sense. We don't need or want rocksolid laws as they're not in the interest of the project's core principles. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:31, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Until a little while ago, I was operating under the assumption that the mainspace disruption – his unencyclopedic edits to marriage proposal and the creation of the hoax article Obuibo Mbstpo – were just symptoms, rather than root problem. I was hoping (and I can't speak for other editors here) that encouraging him to pursue his beneficial edits related to WP:WPPP would give him something useful to do, while keeping him away from the policy-and-procedure related edits that were getting his blood up.

I admit that I find his insistence on clinging to his hoax a bit disheartening, particularly now that he's gone to the extent of fabricating a source ([1]). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit amused that you are continuing to call it a hoax, as I sit here typing with the book laying right next to my keyboard. I should send it in the mail to you. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The "blood" being "got up" was mostly not his. He knows Wikipedia very well. I haven't had a chance to discuss the alleged hoax with him, so I have no idea about that. He did once mention to me that there was a real person behind his name, but I recall no details. If he is insisting on a hoax, I may have to revise some of my opinions, but the fact is that this incident, in itself, would be quite minor, whether or not my opinions need some revision. The charge of "fabricating a source" is certainly premature, unless TenOfAllTrades knows something we don't. By the way, "mainspace disruption" is listed above as if it were a separate offense. He made an unencyclopedic edit to Marriage proposal, definitely. And he created an article which might be a hoax. That's it. That's the mainspace problem, unless someone has something else to point out. Given all the attention focused on him, I wonder how many of us would come up totally clean. Ever make an edit without providing WP:RS? I tell you I certainly have, and many others have, and, overall, the encyclopedia is better for it, which in no way contradicts policy. It's a process. Mbstpo often works by just doing something, within policy, that sparks discussion. He doesn't edit war. I wish we would see more like him in mainspace. However, it's also true that his interest has become process. He has ideas. He's not rigid or inflexible, and he isn't uncivil in comparison to those who attack him for his ideas. He's human, he sometimes responds with sarcasm. To what is much worse. (and nothing I've written above should be construed to condone actually falsifying a source, which I consider a serious offense, worse than vandalism if done in article space or article Talk space; on the other hand, I've seen plenty of sources falsified with no consequence to the editor who did it, it's shrugged off as a content dispute, and doesn't create sanctions unless an edit war ensues.)--Abd (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If he is insisting on a hoax, I may have to revise some of my opinions, but the fact is that this incident, in itself, would be quite minor being a liar is never minor - it kills the goodwill of other editors and means that all of your future contributions are looked upon with suspicion - not the best starting position for someone wanting to make radical policy change. If he held his hands up to a hoax, that's one thing - but if you then tell barefaced lies when called upon it - well then you go from "that guy who had radical ideas" to "that bullshitter", so hopefully that's not the case and he can provide some evidence that such a book exists. --Fredrick day 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The mainspace vandalism isn't on its own blockable. Nor is the hoax article. Nor (probably) is the XfD disruption. But when you add that to all the shenanigans from the user's six previous accounts, including trolling, RfA disruption, votestacking discussions, the messing with the T2 CSD criteria ... Black Kite 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:56, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time. There are charges of all those things. For starters, no RfA was actually disrupted. There has been no votestacking. He made a change to the T2 CSD criterion which actually did develop some comment that there was a problem with it, and he was explicit that this was WP:BRD which is not only permitted, it's considered by many to be recommended. etc., etc. "Trolling" is a problematic offense, it involves mindreading. Now, given that we have a series of nonblockable offenses, combined with other "offenses" which may not even be offenses at all, what do you have? You will, in fact, be left only with "trolling," which can be applied to any unpopular behavior. However, normally, we warn users before blocking them. Usually it takes direct defiance to maintain a block.--Abd (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My mindreading, or common sense as I like to call it, tells me that the sum-total of this user's effect on Wikipedia has been negative. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:47, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

One of my personal heros

Obuibo Mbstpo (1941-2007) was a noted Nigerian linguist, military procurement official, and parliamentarian.

Growing up in the village of Katagum as the adopted child of a wealthy British family of yam-growing plantation owners, he was generally shunned by the children of native villagers, who looked with disdain on his mild-mannered meekness, eccentric interests, and bookish tendencies. Obuibo proved an exceptionally avid reader, teaching himself Greek and rudimentary Hebrew from study Bibles in the family library, gaining an impressive vocabulary by reading English dictionaries and encyclopedias, and even learning parliamentary law from an old copy of Robert's Rules of Order. He gained admittance to the fledgling University of Nigeria's linguistics program, despite his lack of formal schooling, by submitting an insightful essay on the cultural implications of homophonic words generated by Greek contributions to the English language.

At the outbreak of the Nigerian Civil War, Mbstpo volunteered to serve as an officer on the government side. Demonstrating a knack for organization, he rose quickly through the ranks of the procurement office and earned several decorations for administrative proficiency. As the war began winding down, he was offered a translator position at the Nigerian embassy in Athens. Seeking a higher salary, however, he opted instead for an assistant role in the office of the Parliamentarian of the Nigerian House of Representatives, where he wrote several brilliant opinions on application of democratic principles to the unique parliamentary situations of the day.

Two years later, Mbstpo accepted a position as Advisor to the Junior Deputy Under-Assistant Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Armed Forces Procurement and Appropriations. He was responsible for assembling a rather unusual combination of NATO and Soviet-bloc weapons, believing that by taking the best from both arsenals, the resulting force could defeat an invading force from any of the neighboring states. For instance, Mil Mi-24 helicopters were equipped with AIM-9 Sidewinders. The theory was that by arming choppers that could travel faster than AH-64 Apaches with devastating rotor-breaking missiles that exceeded the destructive capability of the Apache's AIM-92 Stingers, it could negate the Apache's potential advantage from having the 30mm M230 Chain Gun, a relatively powerful gun compared to the Mi-24's 23mm GSh-23 (although the twin-barreled nature of the latter also made it a force to be reckoned with). After studying lessons learned from the Six-Day War, Mbstpo suggested the purchase of additional mobile radar units to help prevent a pre-emptive strike from destroying the Nigerian Air Force on the ground.

In 2001, he visited Washington, DC to meet Eric Motley, Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel. Mbstpo's hopes of working in the State Department's Bureau of African Affairs were put on hold indefinitely in the chaotic period following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Meanwhile, however, Mbstpo met a Sandwich, Illinois woman on the Internet. They met in Abuja, where photographic evidence of their meeting was generated. With this in hand, along with a large stack of correspondence, they were able to obtain a fiance visa for him to come back to the U.S. They married in 2003. Ironically, shortly after their nuptials, Mbstpo received notice that he had been selected for the Diversity Immigrant Visa. A lifelong helicopter enthusiast, Mbstpo was presumed to have died in a RotorWay International chopper crash in the mountainous terrain of DeKalb County, Illinois in 2007, although the wreckage was never found. His sister, Anna Mbstpo, compiled his memoirs into a biography that same year. Its title, That Could Never Happen, was a reference to the laconic reply Obuibo Mbstpo always gave to the forwarded scam emails he constantly received from American friends teasing him about the idea of embezzling funds from the Nigerian government.

Others

I also admire Kitty Marion and John Diebold, although those articles haven't been deleted yet... Basically I admire those with divergent interests who persist despite the efforts of others to dissuade them. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Password scrambled!

See you later! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obuibo Mbstpo (talk • contribs)

I've sorry to lose you. I did not approve of many of your activities in project space, although I appreciated your zeal, but I definitely will miss your mainspace work on the parliamentary procedure articles. If you ever wish to resume working on the latter, please let me know and I will see what can be done. For now, please relax and enjoy a few days away from the wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fool! :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Shocked, I'm shocked! Bruning calling a user a fool! Well, I think he won't file a complaint, and neither will I, so water under the bridge. Now, was it foolish? I'm not sure. Mbstpo has a way of doing crazy foolish things that turn out to accomplish something that might not have been reachable by sane, normal response. I can understand why he did it, I can think like him, because I was also 27 once, and did some very crazy foolish things that I would never do now, but which worked spectacularly. Ah, the stories! I used to walk barefoot through broken glass. I literally turned the other cheek to a raging, angry man tossed in a drunk tank where I was being held pending booking, after he hit me the first time, knocking me across the room. (After another stunt where there was actually no crime, tossed out of court. Very much like Mbstpo, I did something one Just Does Not Do.) He hit me again, also knocking me across the room. The man was inside a room off the tank, with the door locked and an opening in the door, for him to hit me, I had to make myself available. And then I went to the sink, where there was a cup, and filled it with water, and handed it to him. He thanked me. Totally transformed. And then I went to the door, having concluded that I was done in there, and they opened the door as I approached it. (I'd been sitting there for hours.) I wasn't in jail. I was right where I was supposed to be. Jail is for people who are attached. Foolish? Certainly! God bless the fools.

Yes, I was disappointed myself by the spiking of the password. He'd sent me an email saying that he was going to do it upon sending the mail. I didn't see that email until I saw what he'd written here. But I can't say it's foolish, it's simply not what I wanted. Wikipedia is NOT (yes I know it can be hard to remember this) the center of the universe. He is not exiling himself to the Siberian tundra, a frozen and dessicated wasteland, by not editing the encyclopedia. I've been telling him, "If we want to change the world, it has to be easy," and I think he got it. It was getting too difficult here for him. Time to work somewhere else for a while, where it's easier. I've done this many times. I don't stick around where I'm not wanted, unless there is some important interest to defend. Now, there are people here who wanted his participation. But the struggle he was involved in does not depend on him, nor does it depend on me, nor upon any individual. It's about the community, actually, and it must be the community that rescues Wikipedia, not some heroic individual, though heroes may inspire us. I think he will be back, and I hope that by then it's a friendlier place, kinder to its crazy fools, as a healthy society must be.

Now, I'm off in search of dragons. Without them, this place will be entirely too boring.--Abd (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

About Obuibo Mbstpo, the Nigerian

As I write this I have been unable to confirm the existence of this person. However, Mbstpo has never lied to me, as far as I know, and I've confirmed at least some of his story. Could he have made this up? It's possible. However, something should not be overlooked here. Assuming that he made it up is violating WP:AGF, blatantly. There are aspects to the story which are falsifiable. It's merely not easy to do with Google!

There is a basic principle of law: testimony is assumed true unless controverted. This is actually statutory law, in the Rules of Procedure. To impeach testimony, you need contrary evidence. Okay, folks, what's the contrary evidence? It's pure suspicion. I have purchased books in used book stores that, it is quite possible, you could search until you are blue in the face and you'd not find a trace of them on the internet, they were "vanity" published. Mbstpo did not supply publisher information and it's quite possible that the book doesn't have it. Is this usable as a source for Wikipedia? That would depend, but probably not. However, it's quite another step to claim that it's a hoax. Without proof. And then to use that as the basis for a block? This is madness. If it's not properly sourced, there is a remedy. It's called speedy deletion, and if someone objects, AfD. Happens all the time, and unless someone continually creates such articles, nothing is done.

WP:AGF. Should we toss it? After all, it's policy, but if the community routinely violates it -- and it does -- it should be changed, so that people know what to expect: suspicion of anything that certain established editors, comfortable with their constricted vision of what Wikipedia is, don't understand. This rampant suspicion has driven away many long-time Wikipedia editors, and Mbstpo is only one of these. It can be a poisonous atmosphere, toxic, breeding resentment and obsession, and the lucky ones are those who escape.

(There are vast reaches of Wikipedia that proceed without this; most editors never even look at WP space except perhaps to read some guidelines, they certainly do not patrol WP:AN/I looking for some incident to vent their dislike of other editors through. They don't spend their days looking for non-notable articles to get rid of. No, they edit here and there, on topics that they care about or that come to their attention. Easy, simple, and sane. And most of Wikipedia was built that way, and continues to be built that way. The toxins arise when there are issues of power and control.) --Abd (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not policy that oft-violated, or even routinely-violated rules are changed. This rule is followed much more than it's not followed. AGF is certainly still the practice, even if it's a difficult practice, and it is still agreed-upon thus far. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:03, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Accusing someone of perpetrating a hoax is not something that I do lightly. I will withdraw my accusation with deepest apologies if someone here can present any sort of independent evidence that Obuibo Mbstpo (the Nigerian military official who died in an Illinois helicopter accident) ever existed.

Please give me – and other editors here – credit for knowing how to use tools other than Google. While any combination of likely keywords fails to find evidence of the Nigerian Obuibo, that is not the only test that I applied. The book almost certainly wasn't published by a 'real' North American publisher; it has no Library of Congress entry (under any plausible misspelling of the purported author's name) and appears with no online booksellers or in any major university library catalogs that I have checked. If the book was published by a vanity press, then the publisher's imprint will still be inside the cover. Obuibo (the Wikipedia editor) has failed to provide even that information.

In the United States in 2007, people don't just disappear in helicopter accidents without leaving a trace. 'Missing in the mountains after a helicopter crash' is just too tempting a story for most newspapers not to pick up. There was no news coverage of Mbstpo's disappearance or assumed death. There is no record of his disappearance in any database of aviation incidents.

What part of his story have you confirmed, Abd? Instead of making vague attacks on other editors, it's time for you to get specific. Share with us some evidence that Obuibo Mbstpo is not fabricated from whole cloth. Anything at all that can be independently verified. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"The mountainous terrain of DeKalb County, Illinois"? " Oh, really? Somebody is really, really credulous not to catch that one. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the infamous Illinois mountain range. Quite trecherous. My favorite bit was "Advisor to the Junior Deputy Under-Assistant Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Armed Forces Procurement and Appropriations." Friday (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, I caught the title, but I didn't mention it in my comment because while it was obviously crap, it wasn't easily provable crap. I'm a bit ashamed that I didn't check Illinois for mountains, though—it turns out that the story is easily falsifiable using Google. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time on this and came to the same conclusion. A practical joke, AKA hoax. Quite a funny one, actually. Yes, I focused on the helicopter crash. (It was a bit of a red herring, because what the article reported was a disappearance, not a crash.) I was suspicious about the "mountains," but I didn't follow that hint. There were many hints. Now, what I wrote above stands. The work done, the development of evidence, to justify a claim of hoax, had not been done. Yes, it was suspicious, but AGF requires us to set aside suspicion until proof to the contrary arises. There was enough said above to confirm it as a hoax, more than enough. But it had not been said. Now, what is the penalty for putting up a hoax article?

No claim is made here that the administrator improperly blocked, for the blocking admin has clearly explained that the block was indef merely to allow community review, he was not insisting -- as Jehochman had pretty much insisted -- that it was worthy of an indef block, that he should, for example, be consulted before unblocking. He specifically stated, as I recall, that he would not mind it if Mbstpo were unblocked. I claimed that what Mbstpo had done wasn't blockworthy, but that, if blocked, 24 hours would have been appropriate. I also consider the blocking admin's decision, as explained, reasonable. As to arguments for an effective ban, that's another story. Mbstpo wants me not to pursue that, but my decision will be independent. In that matter, my concern is policy, not trying to identify some guilty party and punish, which is even more useless -- and disruptive -- than AfD. The concern is not over the blocking admin's behavior, in blocking. (With the prior block by Jehochman, there is that concern.)

The sole consideration at this point is policy regarding the limits on editor behavior, including administrators. If it will help the project, in my opinion, to pursue WP:DR over the history of this affair, I'll do it. If not, I won't.

Don't be ashamed, TenOfAllTrades. Mbstpo's point is, pretty obviously, that we should not be wasting time investigating hoaxes. An article like that shouldn't be deleted, not speedied anyway, it should be categorized as unverified. Anyone could do that and, in fact, it should be a bot task. New article, unverified. Someone has to remove the unverified tag. The unverified template would display at the top, prominently, "The information in this article has not been verified. It may be a hoax, or it may be accurate, or anything in between. If you verify the substance of this article, you may remove this template, explaining what you have verified in Talk for this page. The author of the article should not remove it." Etc.

Knowing that it's a hoax, I think it was quite a good one. I'm glad he placed a copy above, though he did also email one to me. He did not tell me it was or was not a hoax. In any case, the response to the hoax would properly have been to userfy, leaving it visible for any who cared to check. That would have avoided a fair amount of fuss by itself.

Mbstpo has asked me to disengage over his block. One might notice that he never requested unblock through a block review tag. The last time, he left behind a bit of a mess, he had insulted Jehochman, and disliked that (some of his block-evading activity was to apologize). Here, he didn't insult, so I'm thinking he will stay gone. I'd hope that any sock activity is reported here.--Abd (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You're coming at this from a Wikipedian's perspective. People who understand how things work here are more likely to appreciate the value in keeping articles around even when they have problems. Outsiders would not be quite as understanding. Logic tells us that if we keep unverified articles, the majority of articles on Wikipedia would eventually require the unverified tag. Critics would have a field day with that, as would objective reviewers. If people see a site that claims to be an encyclopedia, they will assuredly denounce it if they see that it's mostly filled with information that's admittedly unreliable. I think your suggestion would basically mean the slow death of Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 18 Mar 2008(UTC)

Abd, you don't get off that easily. On what basis did you continue your unfounded assumption of bad faith about me (and others) here? You assumed that none of us had done our homework in deleting this hoax article; why would you make that assumption? Please, tell us exactly what it was you meant by your statement that you "confirmed at least some of his story". You've wasted the time of a number of people now who – in good faith – have attempted to respond to your concerns in some detail, even after you apparently were quite comfortable in your own mind that we had correctly adjudged the article a hoax all along.

Why should we trust you or anything you have to say in the future? Were you just playing word games the whole time? If your point is that we should leave hoax articles in Wikipedia as long as they have {citeneeded} tags, then I'm afraid that you've greatly misunderstood the purpose of this project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Get off? Of what? Am I on trial? "His story" referred to Mbstpo's descriptions of himself, such as his prior Wikipedia history, not to the hoax, none of which I had confirmed. If you will look above, you will see that I never denied it was a hoax, I stated, rather, that this had not been shown. Now, is it possible that it was shown? Of course. I'm human. I make mistakes, I miss things. As to why you should trust me, you shouldn't. Don't. Verify whatever I say. Or don't. However, I will ask something of you: Please don't assume what my point is and then ridicule what you assume. You merely make yourself look bad, it stinks up the place.

So as to the response to hoaxes, I've written a little on my Talk page in response to another outraged editor, I won't waste time responding here. It is not a difficult problem, folks. --Abd (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I AGFed the hell out of this until somebody pointed out to me that this ungooglable person (Nigerians are frequently ungoogleable; notable Nigerians who died in American helicopter accidents, not quite so much) person was born in a fictitious town. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Abd, you accused everyone of blatantly violating AGF, when you assumed they had not taken the time to try and verify the story. That is itself a violation of AGF, and what TenOfAllTrades was referring to. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:02, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it is possible that I've erred. If I have, in the past, I have used strikeout and have apologized. I'm not, however, going to go over everything I've written that could possibly have been in error. Without evidence, I don't recognize the claim made. If any user believes that I have violated this policy or others, please provide me with a diff or diffs, and I will review it and respond. Otherwise, I don't want to clutter up this Talk page any more. It seems that some are beating a dead horse here. The article was a hoax, and it wasn't difficult to see, if. If one put more than a glance into it. A glance was enough to raise suspicions, at least for me, but not enough to assert as a fact that it was a hoax. Now, an admin can make a a judgement and act on it. If the judgment is wrong, it can be fixed. The reason for this is clear: amins have a responsibility to protect the project, and, because a block is remediable (with an experienced user, it can be "fatal" to newbies), it can be shoot first and ask questions later. However, when it comes to reviewing the facts, on ANI or here on the user Talk page, that's another matter. Nobody should have asserted that the page was a hoax without either qualifying the statement as an impression or opinion, or by providing evidence. As noted above, googling Obuibo Mbstpo was inadequate. There were lots of clues, the article was obviously not designed to withstand serious scrutiny. In any case, the point about AGF is based on many, many incidents, this hoax is a relatively minor aspect. Further, I'm seriously ... pissed. A relatively small number of users have driven away an extremely valuable contributor, originally with articles, then with structure and policy. You can look at his parting actions, taken with a level of anger and frustration, and easily conclude that he was badly motivated from the beginning. I know for a fact that this is false.

I'm deciding how to proceed. I'm not sure that it is worth the fuss to take this up the process ladder. On the other hand, if someone wants to take me up the ladder, make my day. Something needs to be done about the rampant ABF problem, but a direct confrontation at this time could be quite a mess. I'd rather avoid it.--Abd (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one threatened to do anything about you. On Wikipedia, you're allowed to violate policy and just get a warning. That's what people here are doing. They're warning you, in the hopes that next time you'll consider your accusations more carefully before making them. No diffs are necessary (at least as far as I'm concerned -- someone who cares more about this is welcome to provide them). If you disagree with the warning, so be it. Continue as you were. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:55, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider

On 18 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reconsider and enter on the minutes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gimmetrow 04:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Abuv the law for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:53, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Blankingdebates

Template:Blankingdebates has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gracie and Zarkov

A tag has been placed on Gracie and Zarkov, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Motions

Template:Motions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Gaming the system" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gaming the system has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § Gaming the system until a consensus is reached. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)