Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider

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: 23:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC).

(GRider | talk | contributions)
Wikipedia_talk:Google_test#POV_tool is also listed on RFC and involves GRider.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2
A Request for Arbitration has been concluded against GRider. As a result, GRider is banned from editing deletion-related pages for the duration of one year. More information can be found here.

Statement of the dispute

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

Incorrectly posting Vfd entries
Changing text by other users
Editing another user's template
Applying the {{vprotect}} template despite lacking admin rights

Description

GRider listed numerous articles on Vfd without following the procedure
Anárion then created a template in his user namespace to meta-comment on all of these at the same time.
Grider repeatedly changed the template, despite requests to desist.
Grider tagged it as protected with the {{vprotect}} template, despite lacking actual protection powers.

GRider has been asked numerous times before on his talk page and in VfD votes to not list large bulks of articles on Vfd as it is seen as disruptive behaviour.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[1]
[2]

Applicable policies

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Wikipedia:Wikiquette
~~Don't be a dick~~ (withdrawn by nominator)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[3], particularly these discussions: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Jordi·✆ 23:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
—Mar ka ci 2005-03-19 T 00:05 Z

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

This user's actions waste a great deal of others users' time which might otherwise be put to better use writing articles. Wincoote 11:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I find GRider's summary VfD nominations annoying and wish he would stop. — JIP | Talk 17:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He's certainly wasted my time with this sort of behaviour. See my summary of my experience at User_talk:Chriscf --- Charles Stewart 13:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (edited Charles Stewart 11:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC))
GRider appears to be deliberately wasting time and trying to slow down the VfD process in a protest against school stubs being nominated on VfD (and occasionally even getting deleted). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Less is more. I find GRider's unwillingness to take other editors' concerns into consideration distressful. Denni ☯ 22:32, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Other users who do not endorse this summary

This summary confuses the issue of the GRider/Anarion conflict, with the issue of several people who have asked that GRider change his nomination style. Also, I disagree that his VfD entries were 'incorrect' or not 'following the procedure'. It may be the case that there are other things wrong with his entries, but that is not what this summary claims. Radiant _* 15:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Radiant. Altering another's user space and being "disruptive" on VfD are two unrelated issues that should be handled differently. I can understand the former being handled through an RfC, but I'm not sure if the latter needs to be. android↔talk 15:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with his nominations, except that there are eating up time for the people who bother with them...so let them just run their course...Lectonar 13:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just personal issues spilling onto RfC. Sort it out between yourselves. Dan100 08:43, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think you'll find that attempts were made, just that GRider ignored them. Chris 16:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Please accept my apologies if I am not responding in the appropriate subsection of this RfC. While I do realize that some Wikipedians may not wholly agree with my VfD practices, I also know there are many who find value in my contributions as is evidenced on my talk page. Contrary to the personal attack levied by [[User:An%E1rion]] regarding "working alphabetically through a list of Middle-earth related entries", all of my Tolkien-related nominations were selectively hand made. The issue at hand I believe is the way in which he responded, by spamming Wikipedia with a template, [[User:Anárion/VFDabuse]], which I in turn tagged for deletion as well, as it was itself was a form of abuse. Since I do not wish to engage in this waste of time with [[User:An%E1rion]] any longer, I will be ignoring any additional spams in an effort to generate more light than heat within future discussions. I hope this resolves our dispute here as I must return to identifying minor Tolkien-related substubs. --GRider\^talk 00:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This RfC confuses two issues, a personal dispute and the issue of nominating potentially deletable articles. GRider has wisely and commendably backed down in the personal dispute, the issue of nominating articles should be dealt with in a separate Rfc if at all. Kappa 19:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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.

Summary by Alkivar

Users disagree over what constitutes a valid VfD entry regularly. I strongly disagree with this going to RFC simply because you feel articles have been nominated improperly.

ALKIVAR™ 23:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I am going to RFC because the user changes my words, and seems to refuse requests not to. Not because he is spamming RFC. Jordi·✆ 23:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - On the talk page you say "Just in case anyone thinks this Rfc is frivolous: of course it is..." -- Jordi¿…? 23:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) - This is a clear case of hypocracy, you claim GRider is disrupting wikipedia to make a point, YOUR DOING THE SAME THING! did you actually read the policies you cite? ALKIVAR™ 02:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - That is a logical fallacy - "I say so, therefore it is". Just because Anarion thinks it frivolous, that doesn't automatically make it so. Chris 02:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Summary by TenOfAllTrades

This particular RfC seems to deal primarily with the conflict between User:GRider and User:Anárion. With respect to their particular back-and-forth, I suspect both of them are strongly pushing the bounds of the formal policy at WP:POINT.

GRider has continued to post VfD nominations that don't explicitly state his opinion for the proper disposition of the articles, and phrases his nominations in the form of questions and remarks that may appear condescending ("Discuss amongst yourselves"). He has continued to do so despite a number of users commenting on his talk page. Note that I am one of the users who so commented.
Anárion (signature of Jordi) chose to use a template to reply to all of GRider's dubiously-formatted nominations en masse. One might argue that adding a template to a substantial number of VfD entries on an already-large page (particularly one which doesn't respond directly to the specific VfD nominations) also runs afoul of WP:POINT.
GRider has chosen to respond to Anárion's template by directly, repeatedly modifying the template page in Anárion's User space. I'm not sure if this is a direct violation of a specific policy, but modifying someone else's user space is definitely a gross lapse in Wikiquette.
GRider also applied the {{vprotect}} template to Anárion's template page after one of his modifications. (GRider is not an admin with the ability to protect pages, nor would this page likely be a valid candidate for protection anyway.) Misusing an admin template this way is highly inappropriate.
Both users seem keen to test the (highly unofficial) policy at WP:DICK.

With respect to GRider's unusual VfD nominations, I hoped to resolve that issue through informal talk page discussion. (That may still be possible). I am very concerned about the misuse of admin templates and editing the user space of other editors, which seems to be the stated focus of this particular RfC.

TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Radiant _* 18:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
In particular, changing or removing another user's signed comments on vfd is highly disruptive. —Korath (Talk) 19:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

At this point, I refer TenOfAllTrades to the seven discussions highlighted above, in which people approach GRider re: his VfD style, and in all cases he has summarily ignored these, for all intents and purposes flipping the bird in answer. Chris 16:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

This should probably go here rather than above, or on the talk page. The instructions for VfD contain the following:

... describe ... why the page should be deleted and clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist others in determining consensus.

The issue of Tolkien should not be the issue at point here, but their framing in the nomination, such being inconsistent with the instructions for VfD. For this reason, I cannot certify this RfC, as much as I would like to. If this is rectified, and focus is shifted off the Tolkien cull and onto GRider's VfD manner, I would happily certify it.

The issue of the userpage is valid. Lots of people use user sub-pages for signatures, or for anything else they have to do a lot. This includes having to mass-vote on VfD because someone mass-proposes (genuine or otherwise - bearing in mind that really each article should have its own VfD entry). It was a perfectly valid line "Don't abuse VfD to make a point" (or something along those lines) - tagging it with {{vfd}} was out of line, and use of {{vprotect}} was nothing short of vandalism.

Chris 00:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC). I must entirely object to GRider's reference to the template as "spamming" VfD. Definitely not on.

It seems that now GRider is removing discussion related to this RfC from his talk page. Chris 02:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's his page, (removed personal attack). He can do with it as he wishes. That's like saying "It appears that someone accused of shooting dogs has removed the 'He shoot dogs' sign we put on his front lawn." --Jscott 05:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's not. It's like saying "It appears someone accused of shooting dogs has removed the dead body of the dog he just shot, and was seen to shoot, from his front lawn." Chris 15:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let us not forget that Tolkiencruft is not the only stuff GRider has attempted to Vfd within the past few weeks. Included are Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokemon, and now Sonic articles AND his little test of making the Septenquinquagintillion article. Just annihilate all the major scifi/fantasy areas why doesn't he. He is trying to make some point I'm not sure of. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to discuss only the VfD issue, because I really don't know anything about the issue between GRider and Anarion and I really don't care. Yes, GRider has brought up many articles on VfD. Yes, he does often phrase the nominations in the form of a question. Big deal. The fact that he has sort of presented himself as an extreme inclusionist does make one wonder a bit, but I can't really say that is a problem. If someoen who wasn;t an "extreme inclusionist" had made the same nominations I don't think they would be getting this treatment, so it's hardly fair to attack him for doing something that would be just fine if it were someone else. The fact that very few do not get a decent number of delete votes shows that they are not bogus nominations. Contrary to what others have stated he has not presented a "summary VfD nomination for almost every Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokémon, Harry Potter and LOTR character or place article he finds", rather he has confined his nominations to generally the minor elements of these topics. I have never seen him nominate Data (Star Trek), R2-D2, Meowth, Hogwarts, or Saruman, or anything along those lines, and I doubt its because he hasn't come across them. The Nubian Design Collective is an unverifably minor element of Star Wars that would best be covered elsewhere. And I have to say I find it quite amusing that people have cited his Linda Richmanesque "discuss amongst yourselves" as an issue. For Christ's sakes lighten up. -R. fiend 03:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The situation in general

I'm not entirely happy with this RfC nomination. But I feel obliged to point out that, on several occasions in the past weeks, GRider has VfD'ed about a dozen related articles (i.e. pokemon professors, lesser-known Middle Earth locations, and on another occasion, minor characters from Harry Potter). Then, for every individual article, he asks VfD readers the question on what should be done with the group of articles. This causes many VfD readers to repeat the same argument under each of the related nominations (since an argument applying to one pokefessor can likely also be applied to every other pokefessor).
On Grider's talk page and its history, it can be found that numerous users have pointed out that they consider his behavior pointless and/or disruptive, and suggested that he make group nominations, start a centralized discussion, or just be bold and merge the lot of them (since almost invariably, merging is the outcome for a VfD on a stub on a lesser known character/location from fiction). He has either ignored those requests, or replied that he felt he was doing VfD a service.
So I guess my point is that GRider is causing annoyance to many people on VfD, and has ignored numerous requests to change his behavior on that front. I do not think he is intentionally disruptive or malicious, thus I wouldn't call it a violation of WP:POINT. I just think that it would be nice if he realized that what he's doing is counterproductive. Radiant_* 10:07, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I must agree strongly on the first point. When you nominate an article for VfD, voters ask you questions, not the other way around. Particularly some of the "Please discuss" or "Dicsuss amongst yourselves" notes. Wikipedia is not school and GRider is not our class teacher. Chris 15:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree with both of you. GRider's summary VfD nomination for almost every Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokémon, Harry Potter and LOTR character or place article he finds is greatly annoying and I wish he would stop. However, I do not understand how this RfC works. Where do I sign up for wishing he would stop? 85.76.152.179 16:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - I guess this might be User:JIP (from here). If you believe the summary in the top is accurate, and are happy for your name to be shown as such, sign under "Other users endorsing this summary". Otherwise, you comment here will probably be enough. Chris 16:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Yes, it's me, User:JIP. For some reason, my browser (Mozilla Firefox) deleted my sign-on information. I have now signed back on. Thanks for the reply, I'll sign under the section. — JIP | Talk 17:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        JIP, you seem to be mistaken on the nature of this thread. This is not a vote to get someone to be quiet (after all, Wikipedia is not a democracy). Rather, it is a discussion on how best to resolve the current conflict between GRider and Anorion. Radiant _* 20:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
        Thanks for the correction. I've never read a RfC like this before, so I guess I indeed misunderstood its intent. Anyway, I have reread the summary, and I think my signature is in the right place, but for the wrong reason. — JIP | Talk 09:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As usual, IMHO, this is (again) the problem with an wiki-endemic bias of sorts; it has been pointed out regularly that things like Tolkien, HP, StarWars etc. seem to be overly represented in wiki, as, I think, it is something which the average wiki-user is more interested in in general (and, appropriately, he defends much more belligerently), as one needs a certain inclination(sic!) to be interested in contributing to wikipedia at all...If GRider is trying to make a point, I for once fail to see which one it is; on the other hand, I would welcome that he changes the way his vfd's are presented (In this I would endorse the frequent comments on the vfd's proposed by GRider, namely not posting them as questions, or, as mentioned above, in the manner of a teacher ("Discuss!)....Let the Vfd run their course, as the usual 'outcome' is Keep Lectonar 10:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am wholly in agreement with User:Radiant! here. While making no comment on the propriety or otherwise of the user dispute, I do wish that GRider would make some attempt to placate those who have been irritated by his VfD practices. His "socratic" approach towards VfD, apparently taken, as User:RickK notes, with some sort of edifying moral lesson in mind, is of great concern, and IMHO constitutes a prima facie case of bad-faith deletion. If he wishes to change Wikipedia deletion policy in some regard, he should say/do something about it directly. Otherwise, he runs the risk of (a) being completely opaque and/or (b) appearing hopelessly patronising. Lacrimosus 07:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems that GRider is doing this in order to make some sort of point

When he first came onto Wikipedia, he immediately got into a discussion about what should or should not be deleted on VfD. He was of the extreme keep faction. His current User page compares people who vote delete on VfD to Nazis, and lists pages he is outraged about having been listed on VfD. It seems that this mad rash of VfD listing is his attempt at making some point. Rick K 10:21, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

General childishness

The accusation of breaking the (very non-official) policy WP:DICK was part of the initial RfC, and quickly stricken by the nominator. Browsing through this page's edit history shows that it's changed a couple of times between ~~stricken~~, deleted entirely (by nominator) and replaced entirely (by the accused). Not very mature of either, if you ask me. Radiant _* 15:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I originally had it in while drafting the RFC: I copied a list from GRider's talk page, I think. After going over the RFC again, I deleted the item: [11]. Why is that "immature"? It seems Chriscf then added it back: [12]. Why he did so, I don't know. Jordi·✆ 15:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, GRider put it back. I figured that if it was taken out, he'd only put it back again, so I compromised and struck it out. Chris 15:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering about that. So we have another account of GRider modifying messages he should not.Jordi·✆ 16:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And for the record: I made sure Markaci still certified the RFC after making my change: [13] [14] Jordi·✆ 15:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere?

Since I already made my point here I wanted to stay away from this thread; however, this morning something else came up that bothers me. GRider posted me message requesting my input on a Tolkien discussion. That is a reasonable request and I have no problem with that. However, what irks me is that he does not bother to respond to requests or questions people have on his talk page. I've currently three questions there for him (one about his VfD behavior, one about him using logical fallacies to change merge votes to keep votes, and one about his comparison of deletionists to nazis) and he seems unwilling to discuss any of them. As a matter of fact, his talk page is chock full of people trying to talk to him but he seems to ignore them all. I find this very rude, and a breach of WikiQuette if not actual policy. I'd like to hear other people's opinions. Radiant _* 09:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

My main complaint wrt. the Raph Levien VfD business is that in the 3 hours between putting up a merge and putting it up for VfD, he ignored two messages from me making the case for the separate article. I'm still angry about this. He should lose the freedom to start VfD actions, IMO, since it's a freedom he is only interested in abusing. --- Charles Stewart 10:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2