Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NoseNuggets

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: 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:43, 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.

[edit] Description

Despite repeated warnings, NoseNuggets continues to flout the rules of the currents-events pages at Current sports events. Specifically, the user:

  1. Refuses to write in an "encyclopedic style"
  2. Adds extraneous details suited for Wikinews or an article page rather than Current sports events
  3. Mixes past and present tenses (the rules of the page stipulate present tense) and
  4. Italicizes all game descriptions

The user has been told on several occasions that he is not following the rules of the page, but refuses to change his behavior.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  • A quick glance at Current sports events shows that NoseNuggets has italicized all football-game descriptions.
  • The Jan. 1 events on the page, despite changes by other editors, show NoseNuggets' tendency to include details not suited to this page. For example:
"Miami Dolphins 28, New England Patriots 26: While most of the Patriots starters — including the league's leading passer, Tom Brady with 4,110 total yards — were resting or played in limited action before next week's playoff game with Jacksonville, Doug Flutie capped off his career by making the NFL's first successful drop kick since Ray McLain did for the Chicago Bears on December 21, 1941 during their 37-9 NFL Championship Game victory over the New York Giants. According to the Pro Football Hall of Fame's website, the kick was also the fist successful drop kick in a regular season game since Earl "Dutch" Clark did it in 1937 for the Detroit Lions."
In the above example, NoseNuggets twice replaced extraneous information (such as the names of the last people to dropkick before Flutie) that another editor had removed.
  • NoseNuggets' description of the Jan. 15 NFC playoff game shows his refusal to use the present tense:
"NFC: Carolina Panthers 29, Chicago Bears 21: The Panthers punched their ticket to the NFC Championship Game in Seattle next week against the Seahawks thanks to Jake Delhomme's three touchdown passes, two to Steve Smith, who had 12 catches for 218 yards."
  • An example of the user's refusal to write in "encyclopedic" style (from Dec. 5):
"Seattle Seahawks 42, Philadelphia Eagles 0: The Eagles retired Reggie White's number 92 at halftime, the home team was pretty much retired before that. The Seahawks used three turnover returns for touchdowns — two of them by Andre Dyson — and two Shaun Alexander touchdowns to thrash the "Beagles"."
  • "When I removed the italics and attempted to clean up the page, NoseNuggets put the following edit on my Talk page: [1] - PLEASE leave the Current sports events format alone. It was fine as it was. NoseNuggets 8:32 PM US EST Jan 11 2006. When I responded that he was not editing in an encyclopedic style, he replied with [2] - I'll report you before you report me for "vandalism". Just leave the Current sports events as it is! NoseNuggets 11:36 PM US EST Jan 12 2006.. Although he did apologize afterwards. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

"Wikipedia is not a news service
"That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic. One very significant danger is that news articles must be kept current in order to remain accurate. Wikipedians might begin a news article and then simply lose interest in the topic, whereupon the article becomes inaccurate. In short, we aren't set up to be an amateur news organization, and we shouldn't try to compete with professional news organizations. ...
"Each listed news item should be no more than one small paragraph long. Write concisely, omitting superfluous words, but grammatically, in properly formed sentences. Aim for brevity: concentrate on what happened, where, and to whom. This isn't really the best place to explain why; again, use Wikinews if you want to write such articles.
"At the end of the listing, cite a Wikinews news summary article or quote one or more URLs, from reputable news sources, as references. These references – or judiciously linked Wikipedia articles – should offer the detailed explanations, background information, and the like that were omitted from the listing."
  • WP:MOS explains when italics should be used.

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

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Mwalcoff 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. User:Jahiegel 00:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:10, 19 January 2006 (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 (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by ESkog

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.

This seems to be a common trap editors fall into when dealing with sports-related subjects: we lose our objectivity. From the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:How the Current events page works: "we do not list POV-laden editorials and opinion pieces." The summaries listed for every NFL game are too much editorializing and too detailed in facts for a proper current events page which is supposed to encompass all of sport. NoseNuggets should do a better job of working with other editors to ensure the page conforms properly with standards.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Joe H.

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.

Even as I have signed the summary of events supra, inasmuch as I am not a user having certified the basis for the dispute, I write to recapitulate the views apropros of NoseNuggets' edits I expressed on his talk page, which comments have since been indecorously blanked, viz.,

"I too have apprehended a tendency in NoseNuggets to frame articles as though he were presenting them on a sports talk show rather than in an encyclopedia. The pernicious quality of such tendency is exacerbated by a tendency toward non-standard grammar and syntax. Of course, surely such tendencies do not render his contributions worthless, but they have the unfortunate effect of requiring one carefully to read his edits in order to remove such language as is unfit for Wikinews (to say nothing of Wikipedia). One surely assumes good faith, but one's assumption is tested and challenged when NoseNuggets reacts so gauchely and untowardly to the comments of those who mean to aid him in writing in a style appropriate to the projects in which he is an enthusiastic and competent participant. None of this is to say, I should note, that I think a proscription against his participating in the editing of Current Sports Events is appropriate, but his puerility--in both tone and grammar--would seem to militate against his being permitted recklessly to undertake to make "nonsense additions" (which, sophomoric though it may sound, is perhaps the most apt, pithy analysis of his edits one could essay)."

Were NoseNuggets simply an inclusionist, one, though still troubled by his edits, might better understand whence he comes; however, he has on several occasions deleted information from NCAA football bowl games, 2005-06 that is quite surely more relevant to the article than that which he has appended elsewhere, to-wit, the point spreads for each game, as, notably, are included in the article for each Super Bowl and, in fact, are found for the NFL conference championship games on the extant Current Sports Events page. Nevertheless, NoseNuggets insisted thrice on including the following paragraph in the summary of the Cotton Bowl in the bowl games article:

"Following the game at the Tide press conference, coach Mike Shula, the son of legenadary Miami Dolphins coach Don Shula fell off the platform and recovered, then informing those in the room 'Please don't let them show this on ESPN.' Much to his chargrin, they aired the incident that night on SportsCenter, to which Steve Berthiume (a SportsCenter anchor) would have swiftly replied 'Bear Bryant, your thoughts?'".

One is left, then, to wonder whether it is petulant recalcitrance or intellectual infirmity that has so colored NoseNuggets' edits, and surely one finds that neither is a particularly auspicious quality to be had by a Wikipedian. I hope, though, that this RfC will effect in NoseNuggets a change sufficient that his ostensibly capacious sporting knowledge might not be lost and might better be communicated to the Wikipedia community writ large.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Joe 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[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 (sign with ~~~~):

[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.