Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime/RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Persistent violation of wikipedia:Verifiability policy. `'mikka (t) 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

The user references to the working page List of sexual slurs/old that contains nonverified information into the List of sexual slurs artilce in blatant violation of wikipedia:Verifiability policy despite numerous warnings. What is more, in an edit summary he wrote: "We need to give users a place to put their slurs so they don't put them here", i.e, he in fact wants more unverified input, giving bad lesson: "you please put your garbage here, and we shall happily waste our time and check what was it: your trolling or some really precious rare pearl from an old village in Eastern Shropshire". `'mikka (t) 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Initially I removed this link because it was linking outside the main article space. Clearly, such linking may bring all kinds of POV pushing, forking and verifiability problems. My first vote for deletion was "del or move to user space", so that it would not look like a "real" article. This ended in "keep/merge, no consensus to delete". (By the way, Primetime's idea to use thte second article as troll magnet will make it impossible to implement the first AfD decision "keep/merge".) I changed my rationale according to my nomination for vote for deletion invoking an absolutely indisputable policy: wikipedia:verifiability. `'mikka (t) 03:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, to dismiss accusations of my ill will (voiced in the second AfD), please let me note that I don't go raiding and deleting the unverified content from List of sexual slurs/old, despite it being forced to be visible from other articles. `'mikka (t) 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Recent history
  2. Example: edit summary: "Re-inserting links to other list"

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. wikipedia:Verifiability

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. user:Aaron Brenneman edit summary: "We really _cannot_ link to that page: it's uncited! Just find refs and move them here or something".
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs/old (2 nomination)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

The "List of sexual slurs" entry has a subpage called "List of sexual slurs/old" created to divert vandalism away from the main entry and hold unsourced entries. On March 14, Mikkalai nominated the subpage for deletion. He also removed the link to the page from the main article because he said there should be no links from the main article space to Wikipedia space. Ever since that time, I have been re-inserting the link to the subpage because otherwise users post their entries to "List of sexual slurs," where they are promptly deleted by other editors because they don't have sources. My re-insertion of the link apparently has angered Mikkalai, who nominated the subpage for deletion again on April 18, 2006. The list was kept again (the "List of sexual slurs" article was nominated once, as well). I proposed to Mikkalai on the deletion voting page that we create a subpage in the main article's talk page to hold the slurs, so as to solve the mainspace problem.[1] This idea was proposed in a discussion on the "List of sexual slurs" talk page to me by another user and no other people raised objections. Mikkalai then changed his rationale, saying now we could not link to the page because it was unsourced.

There is no passage in WP:V forbidding the linking that we have done. It is a compromise and visitors to the /old page are warned that the terms are unverified. Further, making it almost impossible to find the terms by delinking the list would be just plain wrong. I have three slang dictionaries (and several other unabridged ones) at my house, so trust me when I say that the vast majority of the words there are true. If an editor thinks an entry sounds suspicious, they can add a {{fact}} tag to it and give the author some time to find a source. There are 643 slurs on the /old list. Many of the entries they refuse to allow into the main list are obviously real (e.g., dike). Further, the vast majority of these entries were written before the recent push for citations, so the authors didn't know that they were doing something wrong by adding the unsourced material.--Primetime 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.