Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2

Add links
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, not different disputes. 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: 09:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

[edit]

I am hesitant to open a RfC for this, but the matter has gone too far. I am not altogether convinced that GRider is at fault here, or is acting in bad faith, but something must be done to prevent this matter from escalating and disrupting VfD. I'm trying to be scrupulously neutral here, and I realize that this RfC nomination as I write it is incomplete and will be removed in two days, unless other people expand it to a full-scale RfC. Radiant_* 09:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

  1. GRider makes regular VfD nominations along the lines of "would you think this article is notable? If so, why? Is it demonstrated by this page here? Discuss amongst yourselves".
  2. This has apparently annoyed a number of people, who have asked him on his user page to stop.
  3. GRider has not responded to the majority of these comments.
  4. Many people now respond to these vague nominations with intentionally vague votes or querulous responses, and several people are voting keep for no other reason than that GRider is the nominator. The term 'invalid nomination' is frequently used.
  5. Clearly this is a disruption of the normal VfD process, and something must be done about this. I now yield the floor to comments.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

Applicable policies

[edit]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]
  1. Kieran 11:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. flamurai (t) 11:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • (their explanations are listed below, under response)
  3. Markaci 2005-03-22 T 11:57 Z
  4. Charles Stewart 13:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) - an article I created, Raph Levien was subjected to the Socratic VfD treatment, and I personally received the Sound of Silence treatment when asking for reasons for a merge he applied to this article prior to the Socratic VfD.
  5. TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) I wish that we didn't have to do this, but there seems little other recourse to encourage GRider to communicate with the community. I would also mention that there is a problem with him adding VfD templates to articles and marking those edits as minor with no edit summary—but I am loathe to start another RfC. (Talk page comments here and here now here; GRider has deleted that section of his talk page.) TenOfAllTrades | Talk, updated 20:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6.  ALKIVAR™ – the problem as I see it, is that he lists them individually rather than as 1 related vfd. The fact he asks "do you think this is notable" is not really a problem, but he does certainly flood VfD.
  7. iMb~Mw 17:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) At 01:34, 22 Mar 2005 I left this query on GRider's talk page, asking why he persists in ignoring the VfD nomination directions which call for the nominator to "describe why the page should be deleted" and "clearly write what action you think should be taken." On 12:48, 22 Mar 2005 GRider removed the query, with no edit comment and no reply on his user page or on mine. I interpret this to mean that he declines to discuss this matter with me.
  9. I especially wish to emphasize the "don't mark deletion nominations as minor edits" point; I asked GRider to stop this behavior, and, following a short and evasive reply, got no further response. See User talk:GRider#Edit summaries. Meelar (talk) 20:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Particularly annoying was that rather than archive like everyone else, he decided to try and remove all evidence that some people had challenged him over this behaviour. Chris 20:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. GRider's first few VfD posts were keeps. He felt that hardly anything qualified for deletion. He even has on his User page a list of articles which he claim to feel appalled about having been listed for deletion, comparing the people who voted delete to Nazis. Now, all of a sudden, he's making massive deletion listings without any explanations as to why he feels they should be deleted, but making rhetorical questions instead. I feel that this is an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia in order to prove a point, and the listings are not being made in good faith. RickK 20:45, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  12. I wanted to remain neutral in this dispute, but given GRider's latest responses to me on his talk page consisted of spurious logic, more rhetorical questions and general evasiveness, I find myself unable to believe in his good faith any more. Also, I find the nazi comparison particularly offensive. Radiant_* 21:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC) Oh yes, evidence [here].
  13. Riffsyphon1024 21:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC) Grider has systematically attempted to delete or as he saw put, and tryed to merge anything that he felt could not hold its own article, into some other article of similar material. He also used the Google test religiously and surprisingly enough (or not so) put that article up for deletion. However this Goggle test method did not always work because some articles were indeed worthy of their own articles, regardless of how many hits they got they Google. GRider has done this method with a host of science fiction and fantasy articles (i.e. Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc). I was very involved in his purge of Star Wars, trying to prevent their deletion, and just as a new wiki was previously created for these types of articles, however he had no knowledge of this wiki before I announced its creation. Also one of the articles happened to be mine: Repulsorlift, to which I argued that it was notable enough in the Star Wars universe. Some referred to it as the "basis for all flying technology in Star Wars". Refer to my user page and the Vfd section on those Star Wars articles here. I am not sure if he wanted to imply that they needed to be Tranwikied, but when I did that to save them, I took slack from various members of the community. I have since been forgiven on that matter. Also I'd like to note that GRider responded robotically everytime, which kinda bothered me. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, since you mention it, here's some background. That wasn't a random number. I had added an item to WP:NOT saying "Articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority (such as a dictionary or a standards organization), or can be shown to be in genuine widespread use. For example, if there were a word for 10174 it would arguably be septenquinquagintillion—but there is no such word, and there should not be an article about it." (An editor has since moved this to WP:WIWO, not because he disagrees, but because he doesn't think it's important enough for WP:NOT). GRider never participated in the discussions of this proposal. But within a few hours of this item appearing in WP:NOT he created an article on Septenquinguagintillion. His article presented no information not in Names of large numbers. (Due to an apparent error in counting the number of groups of zeros, the number he presented as the value of septenquinquagintillion was actually 10171, i.e. was in error by a factor of a thousand, giving me the impression he couldn't really care deeply about the topic). This action felt provocative to me; I queried him about it here and received no reply. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Mgm|(talk) 10:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jordi·✆ 10:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kieran 10:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. — JIP | Talk 12:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Wincoote 13:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Given GRider's comments when nominating Wikipedia:Google test for deletion, I cannot but assume every nomination he makes with a link to a Google search is in bad faith. —Korath (Talk) 13:55, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 14:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Angr 16:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. DaveTheRed 17:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. android↔talk 19:45, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  11. It is distressing that GRider is not prepared to at least address the quite legitimate concerns that others have towards his VfD methods: if there is hostility against him, this is the source. If he wishes to evade such hostility, he would do well to make an attempt at response. Lacrimosus 20:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. On an individual basis, many of GRider's vfd nominations have merit. However, given the sheer number of them, his refusal to state a basis for deletion and instead posing his nomination as a question, and his strong feelings about inclusionism - his user page absurdly compares deleting articles to the book burning of "Nazi German's" - it is clear that he is disrupting VfD to make an inclusionist point. Gamaliel 21:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Denni☯ 00:38, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  14. Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) - he put Rusty Foster up for deletion!
  15. kaal 01:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Marking VfD nominations as minor and without an edit summary, refusal to discuss concerns (and just deleting them from his talk page), and apparent bad-faith nominations to make a point are all quite concerning to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. AllyUnion (talk) 06:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. cesarb 06:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Lectonar 07:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) His behaviour has definitily taken a turn for the worst, although I still believe in the good in everyone
  20. Mike H 10:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Louisisthebest_007 20:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) - He uses Google to determine wether articles or good or not by their page popularity, With the Googlebomb and fan-site factors. Google doesn't say wether an article is good or not, its the content and potential to be a proper article that Wikipedia wants.
  22. Binadot 22:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) - GRider's main aim seems to be obstruction. He seems to think that if he makes enough pointless nominations, he'll gum up the works and scare away all the "Nazi German's" who fiendishly vote to delete. I don't think he has the foggiest idea of why the VfD process exists, except perhaps as a showcase for his own ironic brilliance.
  23. JYolkowski 23:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. I'd like to endorse this summary about GRider's refusal to follow correct form in his nominations being frustrating and obstructive. I'd also like to point out that GRider was the creator of the now-deleted Template:Vfd votes, which reduced a VfD discussion to a tally box classifying all votes as "Keep" or "Delete". I do not think this should in itself be held against him, but considering that it comes from the same user that is now refusing to disclose his own vote on an issue he himself brings up, it bolsters the suspicion that GRider is trying to make a point. In addition, when I and other users tried to communicate with him on his user page regarding our objections to the use of this template, GRider erased those messages with no response -- not even a link to the discussion on Templates for deletion. That, I think, should be counted against him, as serious evidence that his true aim is disruption of a process that he has taken it upon himself to be the moral arbiter of. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Template:Vfd votes shouldn't be held against him, no... but continuing to inline it after it was deleted, and forcing us to suffer through Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes, sure should. —Korath (Talk) 03:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, GRider didn't wait until the template was deleted. Xe began to "subst" the template in almost as soon as I applied the {{tfd}} notice to the template and listed it on WP:TFD. I initially wondered why the {{tfd}} notice wasn't showing up. Uncle G 17:02, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  25. Zscout370 03:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Mykola Petrenko 17:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) . I agree with GRider in some points, but Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove your point. We do have enough articles VfDed each day.
  27. TAS 18:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) -I agreed at the beginning with what he was doing but it has gone too far.
  28. --Lee Hunter 03:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. dbenbenn | talk 10:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC). His listings make my life harder by adding to the backlog at WP:VFD/Old.
  30. Thryduulf 10:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. Hedley 19:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) - When it takes 10 days for some VfDs to be dealt with after they end, rhetorical mass-VfDs aren't really helpful. GRider should learn to use Google before putting anything up for VfD, instead of just assuming the article isn't notable.
  32. LtNOWIS 02:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. Joyous 02:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who do not endorse this summary

[edit]

From Civil Disobedience:

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them... If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth— certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.

ElBenevolente 00:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • That's very nice, but Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. One might also point out that GRider isn't exactly being civil. Radiant_* 09:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I can not remember another time that a campaign on Wikipedia issued by (unnamed, for now,) parties due to off-site activites, in Grider's case, his anti-semetic remarks and statements about women, has ended up causing a move to have him deleted off the site. It's just wrong. Just because his opinions are noxious does not mean they should be censured. Wikipedia is for everyone. --Jscott 08:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nobody's saying he should be deleted from WP, merely that he should desist his current activities of subverting the VfD process, and disrupting WP to make a point. Radiant_* 09:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when did GRider make anti-semetic remarks? I had no idea of any of this. Meelar (talk) 09:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is very confusing - when was GRider accused of anti-Semetism or chavinism? What activities off-site? Lacrimosus 09:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Jscott has been warned before for personal attacks on other users. I think we should politely note that he is the only user to even mention male chauvinism and anti-Semitism, and not feed the troll further. Since Jscott maintains a blank talk page, I don't think there's going to be much productive discussion there. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Response

[edit]

I made a post (somewhat emotive) on User:GRider's talk page regarding his nomination of the scalpelling article for VfD. The post was subsequently deleted without a reply or reason.

I am concerned, as it seems to me that GRider is nominating articles for deletion on the basis of noteworthiness, which, according to the deletion policy, is not a valid reason for a VfD (though it may be a reason for a merge or expansion). What concerns me more, is that GRider is choosing topics in which he has no interest, and to which he is making no contribution, to nominate for deletion. When he nominated the scalpelling page, he made no further comment thereon, and made no move to suggest ways, or offer to fix the problem. I would suggest that his behaviour consitutes spamming, and should be regarded as harmful to the Wikipedia at large.--Kieran 10:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I would prefer not to start an argument here on whether or not 'notability' is a valid reason for deletion. However, I must point out that many users nominate or vote on grounds of lack of notability, so this cannot be held against GRider. Also, deletion should be done instead of offering suggestions, if you feel that there really isn't any way to improve the article to encyclopedic standards. By which I'm not saying that the Scalpelling article is not improvable, but simply that your argumentation feels invalid to me. Radiant_* 11:41, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I withdraw my comments on notability (that is a debate for elsewhere). I maintain, however, that GRider is nominating pages for deletion without participating in the process, and without an understanding of the subject matter he is nominating for deletion. For that matter, is it possible he is using a bot to carry this out automatically? --Kieran 11:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It is technically possible, but it seems unlikely because his nominations are all unique in text (if not in style). Radiant_* 11:59, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is an important difference between making the odd improper nomination, and making them in bulk, repeatedly, and continuing to do so after the issue has been explained to him specifically and in detail. Wincoote 13:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I first posted on GRider's talk page about this issue on February 18. GRider replied with more rhetorical questions. He ignored my reply to that message. About a month later, another person commented about the same issue, and I took the opportunity to reaffirm what I said in my first comment. At this point, GRider no longer replied to the objections. – flamurai (t) 11:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Another issue that I feel I must point out, is that GRider has on several occasions sent out requests to a substantial amount of users to ask them to vote on an article on VfD. While the requests were neutrally worded, he only sent them out to users likely to agree with him on the issue. While not illegal, this is at least unusual. This vote-gathering seems to run counter to his penchant for getting discussion on VfD matters. See this VfD vote for some results. Radiant_* 15:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • The big issue I think that most people have with GRider, is that he does not seem to understand WP:POINT. When he nominated the google test, I doubt he actually thought the page should be deleted, rather it was his way of protesting against the google test. By nominating several dozen tolkien articles, I don't think he believes they all should be deleted, rather he is trying to find the line between what is kept and deleted. What he doesn't seem to realize is that VfD is not the place to shape policy. DaveTheRed 17:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I stopped assuming good faith with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Carl Meinhof, where I first noticed that GRider was deliberately excluding "encyclopedia" from Google searches, hiding the fact that we would be removing topics that other established encyclopedias cover. --iMb~Mw 19:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Outside view

[edit]

Before making an advance to endorsing or not endorsing 'this' summary, I for once would like to have User:GRider make a comment to this whole business, too (also to the Rfc/Grider part); I can fully understand that people are getting miffed by his overall behaviour, especially later on, but, as Radiant has previously stated, I even now fail to see the bad faith from GRiders side. Let's keep a cool head, and no witch-hunting, please. There must be a way to resolve this peacefully. Lectonar 13:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • PS: I just see that there is a discussion going on concerning deletion policy for MiddleEarth/Tolkien-cruft; I take this as concludent sign that GRider is willing to compromise Lectonar 13:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not entirely agree with that. Yes, he created the discussion, but he simultaneously nominated another half-dozen of Tolkien-related articles. Radiant_* 15:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Re bad faith: GRider's many recent nominations are in seeming defiance of the VfD nomination directions, which say "describe, in accordance with our deletion policy, why the page should be deleted and clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article." If, in fact, he does not believe the articles he nominates should be deleted, then nominating for them for deletion would seem to be bad faith. By ignoring his obligation to state "what action ... should be taken," he makes it difficult to judge. However, the content of his user page, which is literally inflammatory, reasonably raises a question.
I note, too, that GRider has no postings whatsoever on the current Wikipedia_Talk:Deletion policy page, which is where deletion policy is developed. If his VfD nominations are being made for the purpose of shaping policy, rather than for the purpose of executing existing policy, this too would seem to be bad faith. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but he started this page: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items, but as far as I can see didn't state his personal opinion Lectonar 14:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that I first attempted to contact GRider about his unusual VfD nomination format on March 15 (see User_talk:GRider#Socratic_VfD_Method) with a follow up note on March 18. He has yet to reply to either comment. I suspect that this RfC is primarily for the purpose of getting some response from GRider regarding his nominations, because he hasn't been communicative through his Talk page. (For what it's worth, I wasn't involved in opening either RfC.)--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ten is correct. This is better than posting intentionally obtuse votes to GRider's obtuse VfD nominations, as some people have been doing. Radiant_* 15:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I should think GRider is reading this page with an amused sneer on his face. If abusing WP to make a point isn't bad faith, then I suppose he is not editing in bad faith. --- Charles Stewart 14:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've yet to see any evidence of WP:POINT here. Many of articles GRider nominated are awful and have no place on Wikipedia (substubs on Tolkien rivers or some obscure bloggers). These articles speak for themselves and even if the nominator doesn't want to formulate his position clearly, anyone who looks on the article could make his own mind on the issue. What's next? Requiring that everyone should provide a reason for speedy deletion? Grue 17:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • And that is the main point of this RfC. When a VfD is issued, a short two-three sentence reason is given by the person who wants the page to not grace Wikipedia at all. If the nominator does not supply a reason for the page to be gone, then us Wikipedians have no idea why this page should be gone. The reason's this user gave were (to me) open-ended, so I could not really see why it is there. If there is a clear reason why the page should be gone, it should be listed with the nomination. Zscout370 18:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I am an inclusionist; the problem currently is that there are not any clear guidelines on what is acceptable as far as a stub, article, and redirect. For whatever reason, be it systemic bias or otherwise, the written and unwritten "rules" of inclusion seem to change depending on the subject matter. If an article is ultimately deleted, that is a decision made by the community and not me personally. In an effort to build a stronger, better Wikipedia, I am asking the difficult questions that others have side stepped or avoided for so long. I do understand that some may disagree with my methodology; they are entitled to their opinion and I will respect that.
Therefore, either (a) GRider is lying about his motivations on his user pages, or (b) he has embarked on a VFD spree to make a point. I believe (b) is the case. I consider his behavior inappropriate (and, incidentally, harmful to those of us who share his inclusionist principles but prefer to see them advanced in constructive ways.) I have tried to engage him in discussion of this via his usertalk page, but have gotten no reponse. --Jacobw 20:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I should also add that I may be biased in this matter, since I am the subject of one of Grider's VFDs (interestingly, a VFD that he made for an article he had previously voted to keep. I'm not aware that this has caused any bias on my part towards him--but then, if I were biased, I would presumably be unaware of it. I'm therefore providing this info so that folks may keep it in mind when reading any of my opinions on this subject.--Jacobw 22:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, assuming GRider is indeed an inclusionist, one should consider the fact that in the current situation, he needs but nominate an article and half a dozen people will vote keep on the general principle that his nomination may be invalid. I doubt that was his point, but it is highly irregular nonetheless. Radiant_* 20:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh and by the way, I've kindly asked him to remove the comparison to nazis from his user page (which regardless of anything else is entirely uncalled for - per assume good faith and Godwin's law). He has responded by removing my request from his talk page. Radiant_* 20:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • He has since ignored the re-added comment and two additional comments. He has also supported the nomination of swastika for featured article status, because he feels it is "very appropriate" [1].Lacrimosus 22:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another view & possible evidence towards bad faith

[edit]

My own opinion of GRider took a turn for the worse with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mundungus Fletcher. Prior to that point, I had certainly noticed GRider's tendency toward extreme deletionism, and recognised him as perhaps the most extreme deletionist active on VfD at that point. However, I had also assumed that while his votes were extreme, he was doing what he felt was essentially the right thing for Wikipedia, and generally acting in good faith. The Mundungus Fletcher VfD changed all that, and I'll describe why.

GRider nominated Fletcher by quoting the opening line of the article, that Fletcher was mentioned in passing in a book in the Harry Potter series. However, the article goes on to say that Fletcher becomes an important character in later books, which GRider did not mention in his VfD nomination. I can see only two possibilities here...

1). That GRider nominated Fletcher without having read the whole article! It is possible that GRider read the first sentence, assumed that Fletcher was only mentioned in passing in one book, and nominated it based solely on that reasoning. This is, needless to say, extremely bad form. VfD nominators should, at an absolute minimum, read the article in question completely. I doubt that a nomination beginning with "I didn't read this article and have no idea what it's about, but I want to delete it" would carry much weight.

2). Even worse, it's also possible that GRider indeed did read the full article and decided to only quote the first sentence, in an attempt to deliberately mislead voters unfamiliar with the subject to assume non-notability and vote to delete based on the nomination wording (I personally think voters should read the whole article too, but that's not the point here).

I brought this up in my Keep vote, and some of the other voters including Kappa and RaD_Man thought that the VfD should be de-listed as misleading. However, GRider did not respond to our concerns, not even to defend/explain himself, nor did he correct the nomination text to make it less misleading. He did, however, respond to another voter, Markaci, with a rather rude This section of Wikipedia is called Votes for deletion, not Votes for inclusion; our fellow Wikipedians can speak for themselves. Thank you for spamming. No explanation was given regarding why he thought Markaci was "spamming". Needless to say, the article was kept, with 19 votes and not a single delete among them.

I would like to assume good faith, but in this case, good faith and the facts don't seem to be reconcilable. If I'm wrong about this (and frankly, I hope I am) I welcome any discussion on this topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am tempted to agree with Andrew in this case, at least. While I think many Of GRider's nominations are worthy of deletion, or at least highly questionable, and thus valid nominations (I suspect I'm in favor of deleting more of GRider's noms than he is, but that's a different issue, really), that case, among others, does raise some important questions. I think the biggest issue is GRider's refusal to address any problems people have, instead ignoring the issue entirely. His "Socratic method" of nomianting in the form of a question does not really bother me. Saying "how is this notable/encyclopedic?" can be read as a rhetorical question if one chooses (I, for instance, might at some time have said in a nomination something like "Why the hell do people write crap like this in an encyclopedia?" and I think it makes my position known well enough, question mark notwithstanding). His own opinion on the matter is consequential only to the admin tallying the votes, who has to decide whether to count his as a delete or not. The rest of us are at least given an issue based on which to vote, and usually a valid one. It's these fewer cases of true, or highly suspect, abuse that need addressing (Mundungus Fletcher and Wikipedia:Google test, for example), and his tendencies to ignore legitimate concerns of others. Another issue I find somewhat troubling is others' recent responses to his nominations, mostly people voting keep just because they don't like the method of nomination or nominator, particularly in cases when the article is likely deletion-worthy. We can blame GRider for leading others to this, but I don't think we can blame him entirely. -R. fiend 19:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's interesting that Andrew Lenahan - Starblind characterizes GRider as an "extreme deletionist" whereas I have always believed him to be a strong inclusionist. Any interpretation I could make of this would be speculative, but WP:POINT comes to mind. And so, for some reason, does Janus. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, he's definitely an inclusionist with schools, but seems eager to delete darn near anything else. Part of the reason I categorise him as an extreme deletionist (as opposed to just the regular kind) is the tendency to go after whole categories of articles at a time, generally from popular/notable works (Harry Potter, Pokemon, and Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings series spring to mind), sometimes leaving rebuttals to those who vote "keep" on his listings, and re-listing things almost immediately after their VfDs conclude. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a deletionist as long as it's in good faith. Some of the very recent behaviour has caused me to question that, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding WP:POINT, check out this document, User:GRider/The_100_Club. Radiant_* 20:58, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's interesting, and it brings me to another complaint about GRider's recent nominations: he plays fast and loose with his Google scores, often to the point of being (intentionally?) misleading. Here's an example from that list: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Professor Felina Ivy. Like most of GRider's nominations, he flaunts her apparently-low "38 unique Google hits" as a reason to delete. But if we take a closer look, we see that the 38 is based on her full title & name as an exact phrase, "Professor Felina Ivy" which naturally brings low results. "Felina Ivy" on the other hand, gets 105 hits, while "Professor Ivy" gets 2,510 hits and "Prof. Ivy" gets 1,750 hits. Even accounting for duplication and the handfull of unrelated stuff, we still have hits in the thousands, a far cry from the 38 that was originally claimed. One could even use the same trick to make a case to delete Winston Churchill, as his real full name "The Right Honourable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill" brings less than 100 hits if searched for GRider-style! If you fiddle with the Google scores a little, you could make anyone in history look not notable! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • I pointed this out to him on a VfD nom in the past... probably about a month ago. I don't remember which, unfortunately. – flamurai (t) 23:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • See also User:GRider/Crusades. His choice of page name seems...suggestive of making a point. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Not to be funny here, but does this seem to be enough evidence of disruptive behaviour to warrant a block? Chris 21:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further disruption

[edit]

I've just reverted two of GRider's edits [2] [3] that were in direct defiance of recently-closed VfDs. Let us also not forget who inflicted the tally box pox on us, even after his template was overwhelmingly deleted. (talk page discussion) —Korath (Talk) 20:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for those that don't follow WP:FAC, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet. —Korath (Talk) 20:35, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Wow? I know we have a policy of being bold, but surely showing that level of brass qualifies as disruptive? Chris 20:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I had hoped that there was some element of good faith in all this, but that nomination is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It's a shame. Meelar (talk) 01:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
And a third... [4] Of course it's all for the good of WP. --- Charles Stewart 23:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GRider has again unmerged Bellevue West High School (see history and talk) contrary to the vfd consensus to merge, this time padding it with the sort of unencyclopedic filler typically excised from these articles during VfD. I cannot interpret this as anything but trolling. —Korath (Talk) 19:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • GRider has been "ballot stuffing" again. He has been leaving comments on other users pages to get them to vote to keep school articles see here. This subverts the consensus process, and should not be allowed. He has also started a Schoolwatch page, evidently so that interested parties can monitor what schools are up for VfD. DaveTheRed 03:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • His stated aim is that there be a policy that all schools are inherently notable, and (presumably) thus not eligable for VfDs. I suspect his current tactic is designed to get lots of school articles with VfD discussions ending in Keep on their talk page, so he can provide them with evidence for the need for this policy. Thryduulf 10:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If he could just drop the high-handedness and tell us what he was doing, rather than imperiously brushing the whole thing off, we could possibly make more sense of it all. Slac speak up! 10:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I can't imagine that working, because all the schools that kept are kept because of a lack of consensus, not because of a wide consensus to keep. DaveTheRed 17:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

"a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses" ...

"social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken." ...

"challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are trolling in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking." ...

"alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at their goal".

Quoted from internet troll. It strikes me as a rather good definition of GRider's behavior. Radiant_* 08:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

          • Oddly enough, many of the people on the first list have recently received advisories from GRider about the VfD's on the second list. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm tempted to list a couple of those pages on VfD as inappropriate, and being used as a tool for ballot-stuffing. While ultimately it's not all about the votes, getting a sympathetic audience in does unfairly tilt the consensus opinion. I figure that they'd be appropriate nominations for VfD, but then we wouldn't want to remove evidence before the ArbCom deals with this. Chris 00:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd advise against putting them up for deletion. 1) they're in user space. 2), if their purpose is to promote ballot-stuffing build a policy consensus, they're arguably Wikipedia-related. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I believe WP:DP specifies "Inappropriate user pages in extreme cases" - I would consider an attempt to bypass VfD procedure as inappropriate (not to mention the Nazi metaphors), and I would also consider the lack of response to constitute a stubborn case. All of that said, it may be useful to the arbcom, so perhaps it might be more useful to make sure that it isn't deleted - in particular, if GRider requests that it be deleted, it would normally be a valid speedy. Chris 01:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not building a policy consensus. This is a deliberate attempt to avoid consensus, by contacting only those people whom GRider believes would agree with him. By the way the ArbCom can still see that page even if it is deleted. Radiant_* 08:39, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Addition to Requests for Arbitration

[edit]

A few people have mentioned that this needs to be considered for action against User:GRider. I have put up a request for arbitration.

  • (by User:Kierano)

Some raw, or at least undercooked, data

[edit]
Date Total
nominations		 GRider's
nominations
(% of total)		 Delete
results		 Redirect, Merge,
Transwiki, etc.		 Keep, Move,
No consensus		 Not yet
closed
Feb 14 87 7 (8%) 4 (57%) 3 (43%)
Feb 15 137 31 (23%) 8 (26%) 2 (6%) 21 (68%)
Feb 16 117 16 (14%) 5 (31%) 1 (6%) 10 (63%)
Feb 17 152 27 (18%) 7 (26%) 3 (11%) 17 (63%)
Feb 18 124 24 (19%) 14 (58%) 10 (42%)
Feb 19 74
Feb 20 68
Feb 21 87 18 (21%) 7 (39%) 2 (11%) 9 (50%)
Feb 22 0
Feb 23 54
Feb 24 63 5 (8%) 2 (40%) 3 (60%)
Feb 25 75 6 (8%) 2 (33%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%)
Feb 26 35
Feb 27 62
Feb 28 61
Mar 1 64
Mar 2 93 12 (13%) 1 (8%) 11 (92%)
Mar 3 62 4 (6%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
Mar 4 96 5 (5%) 2 (40%) 3 (60%)
Mar 5 47 2 (4%) 2 (100%)
Mar 6 76
Mar 7 79 23 (29%) 2 (9%) 2 (9%) 5 (22%) 14 (61%)
Mar 8 86 13 (15%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 11 (85%)
Mar 9 79 14 (18%) 3 (21%) 2 (14%) 9 (64%)
Mar 10 46 6 (13%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%)
Mar 11 82 7 (9%) 3 (43%) 4 (57%)
Mar 12 62
Mar 13 65
Mar 14 68 15 (22%) 1 (7%) 4 (27%) 10 (67%)
Mar 15 78 8 (10%) 7 (88%) 1 (13%)
Mar 16 59
Mar 17 69 3 (4%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
Mar 18 90 12 (13%) 12 (100%)
Mar 19 53 2 (4%) 2 (100%)
Mar 20 66
Mar 21 58 6 (10%) 6 (100%)
Mar 22 65
Mar 23 60
Total 2799 266 (9.5%) 54 (20.3%) 23 (8.6%) 118 (44.4%) 71 (26.7%)
Closed
vfds
only		 195 54 (27.7%) 23 (11.8%) 118 (60.5%)

(Please excuse the horrid formatting; it's late here, and paging through the vfd logs was starting to make my eyes bleed.) See also Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#How to make friends and influence people for some comparison. —Korath (Talk) 04:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

There's some mild bias in the percentages on the "total" and "closed vfds only" lines, due to the "not yet closed" column - keeps tend to be closed faster than deletes, especially for vfds with a strong consensus. —Korath (Talk) 05:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2&oldid=1138660577"