User:Rfwoolf/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome
Certain adept users are invited to thoroughly read this page so as to give constructive feedback on this issue.
To be fair, User:JzG (Guy) has not yet been called to this page, and he may wish to add his own arguments. For this reason, any of your feedback will be without prejudice.
If you are reading this page, you are invited to give constructive and thorough feedback on these issues; no fly-by comments made by outsiders or 'cronies' of the parties concerned.
But, this is also a wiki, so users are within their rights to make changes to this page so long as they are fair and respectful.
Please add any of your comments to the bottom of the page in the appropriate section.

1 PART ONE: Preamble
2 PART TWO: The problem
3 PART THREE: My First Conclusion
4 PART FOUR: Questions Positted
5 PART FIVE: Collection of Evidence
6 YOUR comments here (or where appropriate)

PART ONE: Preamble

[edit] PART ONE: Preamble

Many users (and admins) on Wikipedia have constructive criticism of Wikipedia on their userpages [Insert some examples here].
In fact, there's constructive criticism on Wikipedia in quite a few essays floating around and on policy discussions. But what specifically protects constructive criticism about wikipedia on a userpage, is the wikipolicy WP:USER which clearly states:

" 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. "

PART TWO: The Problem

[edit] PART TWO: The problem

I wrote some constructive criticism on my userpage, and to my surprise it was removed by the user Guy and in his Edit Summary, he simply cited "WP:SOAP".

[From my Userpage history...] 12:42, 20 January 2007 User:JzG (Talk | contribs) (WP:SOAP)

This prompted me to read WP:SOAP to see what he was trying to say.
But all I found were strong references to encyclopedia articles (not talk pages), and in each case I could not really see much relevance. Here's the WP:SOAP in its entirety:

From WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the 'standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for guidelines on corporate notability.

As you can see, WP:SOAP clearly focuses on articles, and then refers to propaganda, advocacy, self-promotion and advertising on the said articles.
More over, WP:SOAP has very little to do with userpages, which are specifically covered by WP:USER which specifically says:

From WP:USER " 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. "

So at this stage, I posit that WP:SOAP was irrelevant because it applied to articles, and WP:USER was relevant because it referred to userpages and it allowed constructive criticism of Wikipedia.

So I put back (reverted) my constructive criticism, and citing the following (verbatim):

[From my Userpage history...] 13:05, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs) (Reverted. Apparently, WP:SOAP refers to encyclopedia articles not being soapboxes, and not to User Pages.)

And at this stage, I posit, that if the user Guy disagrees with my comment, the correct action is for him to either a) drop the issue, b) send me a message disagreeing with what I said about WP:SOAP, or c) revert again citing a diferent wikipolicy.
Instead, Guy re-deleted my constructive criticism (reverted), cited WP:SOAP again, and immediately protected (locked) the page, so that I could not make any' changes to my userpage.
In addition, he did something entirely unfair, he deleted some extra perfectly harmless userboxes of mine which you can see here (which he will later put back without any apology).

09:08, 21 January 2007 User:JzG (Talk | contribs) (reinsert "perfectly harmless" userboxes)
21:56, 20 January 2007 User:JzG (Talk | contribs) m (Protected User:Rfwoolf: Soapboxing [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
21:56, 20 January 2007 User:JzG (Talk | contribs) (WP:SOAP)

It should be clear at this stage that Guy has been unreasonable, undiplomatic and uncivil.
At this stage it is possible that he has abused his admins powers, especially with the removal of harmless userboxes which he had never before contested.

SO WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
At the same time that he re-removed my constructive criticism and protected (locked) my userpage, he posted a message on my User Talkpage. Here it is with my response:

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)

So as you can see, I tried to reason with User:JzG using logic and reason, showing him how his citation of WP:SOAP wasn't very relevant, and WP:USER protected my comments. Now the onus is on User:JzG to either a) accept my argument and restore and unprotect my page, b) counter my argument, or c) adopt a different argument to the one had.
Guy did not initially do any of those. He instead sent some of his cronies to my user talk page to try to calm me down which I think is rather rich, but anyways. In a section of my Usertalk page, he replied to one of my comments to his cronies which touched on the issue. Here is the relevant excerpt, and I have included a small editorial where necessary:

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 ^{[Editorial: This referred to a couple of his admin friends (cronies) that he had sent to the page to calm me down. They did not address any issue constructively]}. 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^{[Editorial: It is necessary to point out that the article he now refers to is about Anal stretching (sic) and is irrelevant here but is included for integrity purposes]} 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)

So it is apparent that Guy decided to re-inforce his argument of WP:SOAP and failed to touch upon the subject of WP:USER which protected my actions.

2 & 23/24 DAYS LATER During this debacle, I had kept in touch with my adopted Member Advocate, User:Dfrg.msc, who has been a fence sitter in this thing (painfully so I'm afraid -- but that is arguably to her credit), and she made some attempt to act as a mediator on this issue by posting this proposal which I will excerpt below, and this was Guy's comment, almost 3 days after the fact:

2. Un-protection of Rfwoolf's Userpage ^{<- Typed by User:Dfrg.msc} Rfwoolf's Userpage will be unlocked when Rfwoolf meets these condition(s): <- Typed by User:Dfrg.msc [[[User:JzG\|Guy]] to type conditions here]] I've said I'll unlock it when Woolf undertakes not to abuse his user space as a soapbox. Thus far he hasn't accepted there was any problem with it, so we are not yet at first base on that one, but I said I will unlock it when he's shown he understands, and I will. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thus we see that Guy merely re-inforced his argument, without ever addressing my defense, and was therefore being unilateral, and undiplomatic in that it took him 3 days to formulate his 'conditions'.
I argue that it was premature to lock (protect) my page when I had filed a defence to his WP:SOAP citation. If he had filed some re'-defense (reasonable or otherwise) and I stil disobeyed him (rightfully or otherwise) only then would he be justified in locking/protecting my page. Page protection is reserved for people who don't respond to reason and act in a deliberate attempt to break the rules. That is no definition of me in this case.

PART THREE: My First Conclusion

[edit] PART THREE: My First Conclusion

Thus we see that Guy merely re-inforced his argument, without ever addressing my defense, and was therefore being unilateral, and undiplomatic in that it took him 3 days to formulate his 'conditions'.
I argue that it was premature to lock (protect) my page when I had filed a defence to his WP:SOAP citation. If he had filed some re'-defense (reasonable or otherwise) and I still disobeyed him (rightfully or otherwise) only then would he be justified in locking/protecting my page. Page protection is reserved for people who don't respond to reason and act in a deliberate attempt to break the rules. That is no definition of me in this case.

PART FOUR: Questions Positted

[edit] PART FOUR: Questions Positted

The first logical question going in chronological order, is,
QUESTION 1.
Was my constructive criticism about Wikipedia considered WP:SOAP?
(Note: Even if you find that my constructive criticism about Wikipedia is considered WP:SOAP, it would not necessarily automatically justify any/all of Guy's actions. The converse however, that my constructive criticism about Wikipedia wasn't considered WP:SOAP, would be a strong finding in my favour and would clearly invalidate Guy's actions.)

QUESTION 2.
If it was WP:SOAP,
and if Guy indeed initially cited WP:SOAP,
and I argued that WP:SOAP referred to articles not userpages,
and if he then re-deleted the constructive criticism and re-cited WP:SOAP,
then
was he justified in protecting (locking) the page at the same time? Or was his protection (locking) of the page premature and undiplomatic?

QUESTION 3.
If it was WP:SOAP,
and if Guy indeed initially cited WP:SOAP,
and I argued that WP:SOAP referred to articles not userpages,
and if he then re-deleted the constructive criticism and re-cited WP:SOAP,
and if he was then justified in protecting (locking) the page,
then,
when I talked to him and cited WP:USER, which clearly protects constructive criticism, was he then not obligated to

a) show why WP:USER is wrong, and
b) immediately unlock/unprotect the page?

QUESTION 4.
Having read WP:USER and "What can I have on my user page?", does or doesn't WP:USER protect constructive criticism about Wikipedia on my Userpage?

QUESTION 5.
Even if Guy is right about WP:SOAP and I am wrong about WP:USER, how long should he be able to protect / lock my userpage?

QUESTION 6.
If a userpage is locked/protected by an admin, should there not be a note or a template added to the top of the page to inform all passers-by that the userpage is being protected, and the reasons for this, and where the discussion on this is taking place?

PART FIVE: Collection of Evidence

[edit] PART FIVE: Collection of Evidence

[edit] What was removed on my Userpage ?

Below is the section of my userpage that was removed, shortly before my userpage was protected (locked).

[edit] Constructive Criticism about Wikipedia: Grave warning on current Wiki Policy I am concerned about the deletion review process on Wikipedia. I mean, it's great that there is one, but can anyone out there appreciate that quite a few articles are being deleted when they could very easily be amended? Consider the article on Anal Stretching for example. It was a fairly well collaborated article, but someone put it up for deletion review because it contained a small paragraph that almost read like a how-to guide. Now, reading like a how-to guide is grounds for deletion on Wikipedia, but, it shouldn't be when a) only a small paragraph of an article is a how-to guide, and b) if it is fairly easy to fix. And you know? Wikipedia seems to agree with me. In fact, (I didn't know this at first), there are templates you can add to an article that say "This article needs to be corrected in line with its Deletion Review" or "This article read too much like a how-to guide and needs to be fixed" or "This article has bad referencing which needs to be corrected". Isn't that fantastic! But in the article on Anal Stretching, not one, not even a single user or admin bothered to put up a single one of those tags. And as a few days past and the Deletion Review committee saw that the article still looked like a how-to guide and still had bad referencing, they decided to delete it. Just like that. I was rather shocked at first. I never thought the article would be deleted instead of fixed (read: amended). But it seems a few admins on wikipedia prefer to delete articles instead of fixing them, which is a pitty really, seems like they score brownie points for deleting seemingly problematic articles. So when I discovered it has been just deleted, I thought, "Stuff it, I'll fix all those problems -- if I can -- I'll fix that paragraph that read like a how-to guide and I'll fix up the referencing. So I tried. And half way through the post, another admin deleted the article on speedy-deletion, citing G4 (gibberish to most people) -- G4 is the rule that an article can be speedy-deleted if it's remarkably similar to an already-deleted version. So I of course just recreated it again, just 5 minutes after it had been redeleted, and I tried to -- once again -- fix the article. I fixed the how-to guide (I think) and added a wiki template saying "This article has bad referencing which needs to be fixed" etc. But guess what!? It was deleted, citing G4. but then... the article was simply locked from recreation, unilaterally, by the user Guy, meaning that neither I, nor anyone, can recreate the article! --- So here we have a topic that I think should be included in Wikipedia, that has been entirely removed and blocked, which can't be fixed. So I say, well done admins! How smart of you! Of course the admins will say that the article was deleted by consensus, but that doesn't mean you should block it from being fixed, and not one of them will explain why it isn't a good idea to fix it instead of deleting it. So spare some thought before you try improve things at Wikipedia. There' s a chance you'll just be met with bureaucracy and tunnel-vission, with amendment-lazy admins and trigger-happy deletionists (to quote Dfrg.msc). And this, on the best invention since 2000. I love wikipedia, but I've just been very disappointed at this bureaucracy and philosophy to delete instead of amend. Wake up people! Wake up! Rfwoolf 06:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What was removed on my userpage and later put back?

The following box shows what Guy also deleted on my userpage without warning, but later put back (without apology).

[edit] Additional boxes & Awards

This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday.

This user comes from South Africa.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		This user has awarded himself with a giant star for his undeniable efforts in wading through the odorous mass of bureaucracy that exists on Wikipedia. Rfwoolf 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Userpage history

09:08, 21 January 2007 User:JzG (Talk | contribs) (reinsert "perfectly harmless" userboxes)
21:56, 20 January 2007 User:JzG (Talk | contribs) m (Protected User:Rfwoolf: Soapboxing [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
21:56, 20 January 2007 User:JzG (Talk | contribs) (WP:SOAP)
16:22, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs)
16:22, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs) (→Additional boxes & Awards)
16:19, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs)
15:12, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs)
15:08, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs) (Additional boxes)
15:08, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs)
14:46, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs)
13:05, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs) (Reverted. Apparently, WP:SOAP refers to encyclopedia articles not being soapboxes, and not to User Pages.)
13:04, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs) (Reverted. Apparently WP:SOAP refers to Encyclopedia articles, not User pages.)
12:42, 20 January 2007 User:JzG (Talk | contribs) (WP:SOAP)
07:00, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs)
06:21, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs)
06:20, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs) (→Hi)
06:19, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs)
06:05, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs)
06:01, 20 January 2007 User:Rfwoolf (Talk | contribs) (→Grave warning on current Wiki Policy)

[edit] YOUR comments here (or where appropriate)

Please place any comments you have here, or where appropriate. Rfwoolf 15:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/f/w/User%7ERfwoolf_Evidence_f3ed.html"

Categories: Wikipedia administrator hopefuls | Wikipedians in South Africa

User:Rfwoolf/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] PART ONE: Preamble

[edit] PART TWO: The problem

[edit] PART THREE: My First Conclusion

[edit] PART FOUR: Questions Positted

[edit] PART FIVE: Collection of Evidence

[edit] What was removed on my Userpage ?

[edit] Constructive Criticism about Wikipedia: Grave warning on current Wiki Policy

[edit] What was removed on my userpage and later put back?

[edit] Additional boxes & Awards

[edit] My Userpage history

[edit] YOUR comments here (or where appropriate)

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search