Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC).
- Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs • logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
Billy Hathorn appears to create a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads. His deleted contributions list is substantial, longer than any other editor I can recall, other than acute POV-pushers. Billy is not a POV-pusher. His talk page shows a never-ending series of speedy deletion and AfD notices; a high proportion of these are deleted. Some are simply copy-pastes form external sites, occasionally with minor textual changes.
Some of his articles are good, or become good through the work of others.
[edit] Desired outcome
Billy Hathorn needs to:
- Stop copying text from other websites.
- Pay more attention to the biographical notability guideline and provide good evidence of the significance of subjects.
- Be especially careful to follow the living individuals guidelines in the case of subjects who are living or recently deceased.
- Keep in mind the WP:RS limitations on using unpublished archival sources, self-published works, and unauthoritative obituaries.
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn E. Ratcliff, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Wiggins. See also Billy Hathorn's talk page.
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Billy's Talk page is one long series of people bringing this to his attention, he does not seem to understand the problem.
DGG (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
As DGG says, Billy's talk page is a long list of warnings. Earlier this year, following a mass AfD nomination of a number of his contributions (not by myself), I (and many others) tried to point out what Billy was doing wrong, mainly on AfD discussions. However, while Billy was always polite, nothing that was said seems to have made any difference — other than that he ceased to post pure cut-and-paste copyright violations. In April Billy posted this discussion at AN/I, which sums up the problem at the time fairly well. Although it didn't seem to have any effect, following the AN/I debate I deliberately avoided nominating/tagging any of Billy's articles to avoid any appearance of wikistalking, and I believe the other participants did the same. Because those editors who were keeping an eye out for him in Recent Changes were leaving him alone, more of his articles "slipped through the net", which may have given him the impression that policy has changed. I agree with Guy that this RFC is necessary, although possibly for different reasons; as these circumstances have now caused a backlog of articles that almost certainly warrant deletion, at some point they are going to need to be cleared up and any unilateral mass-tagging by any editor is likely to restart the accusations of bad faith. While Billy is valuable to Wikipedia, as a bona fide expert in his field (the politics of Louisiana), he seems unwilling to accept WP:N and WP:V; his contributions still regularly cite "personal testimony" as a source. His articles as a whole would make a useful book on Louisiana history, but aren't appropriate for Wikipedia; I'd suggest that if he were to move to Wikibooks, he'd likely very rapidly rise to one of their leading political contributors. — iridescent 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I regret to say that my own best efforts may have been at AFD and in the above-referenced AN/I discussion. (I will check, now that I've a bit more time.) I deliberately and genuinely praised Hathorn for his article construction skills. Very few of them need any sort of stylistic cleanup. He also creates many necessary articles such as politicians at the state legislator level and up. But he is not discriminate; either he is using a see-what-sticks strategy, or he is simply ignoring WP:BIO entirely. Outside of bios there are multitudes of articles that could use his contributions. Billy is definitely an editor who could be a tremendous asset to the project. But he needs to pay attention to notability guidelines and in particular WP:LOCAL. I'm one of the most inclusionist regulars on AFD and quite a few of his articles strike _me_ as frivolous. Now, as to sourcing. Many articles are obviously cut-and-paste newspaper obituaries with some rewording. Given his other skills as an editor this is particularly disappointing. First, our notability standards are higher than "had a glowing obit" and second, we should be using as many different sources as possible, with an obit as a last resort. (NYT obits are a notable exception, as they are professionally and neutrally written. Many local newspaper obits are written by the family, failing WP:COI. They may well exaggerate accomplishments, minimize or omit failures, and generally judge a person's importance through rose-colored glasses.) This brings me to my next major concern, which is Billy's continued use of his own unpublished research, especially an apparently lengthy thesis about the history of a political party in Louisiana and Texas. As a source, this may be a last resort for certain material, if the person is indeed notable. I don't think a blanket ban is warranted. But as a main source, and particularly as a source for notability, it is fraught with problems, and Billy's use of it is effectively a type of self-promotion. This is another area where a small amount of moderation would do a great deal for Billy's esteem as an editor. --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
-
- Toddst1 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- With regret because it is never nice to criticise an obvious good faith contributor who has just gone too far. But the deleted contributions link tells its own story: too many of Billy Hathorn's articles are people who are of extremely marginal notability at best. Sam Blacketer 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nburden (T) 07:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- JoshuaZ (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[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.
{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] 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.
I say let the guy contribute his articles and give him a chance to back up his information with references. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia with no refernces at all that no one is ready to tar & feather into deletion. Now I will admit that perhaps Billy should slow down and reference each article properly before moving on to the next one. Sf46 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
