Hey everyone, I know there's about zero interest left in this. (i feel the same way, i would have dropped it a long time ago if it weren't for my wiki account on the chopping block)
Just wanted to report that the Ban Request has been closed with results pasted below. Thankfully, if anything good came out of this it's that there's some good discussions going on in the talk page and the article has gained a lot of sources. I'd like to get a third party Admin to check out the article in a week or so and give us some tips & comments. Hopefully, someone'll throw in some book citations. Good weekend and let's hope for a calmer Monday. Community sanction discussion "Well, what I see there, in for example this edit[1], is the example of dictionary definitions and a link farm. I'm sure you were trying to help, but that edit really *would* need a lot of improvement. Wikipedia is not[2] the dictionary, though we do have a sister project, Wiktionary,[3] which you might wish to look at if you want to write dictionary definitions. Also, please note that, to be quite frank, I couldn't care less who any of you are, up to and including if you invented the Internet. We write from reliable sources,[4] never our own knowledge, thoughts, or experience[5], so it really doesn't matter a bit who an editor is. If Linus Torvalds[6] came along to edit the Linux[7] article, he'd *still* be expected to source. (And deal with me asking about a few bugfixes. But that's a different story.) >From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping laundry lists[8], dictionary definitions[9], material "sourced" to blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly to *listen to him*, and work at improving the article. Most of the material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't acceptable." - Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=127290390&oldid=127280521 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAUNDRY [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DICDEF "*Comments after looking at the evidence* Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before coming to Community sanction noticeboard? First off if members of the yahoo group are working to support each other this is a breach of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:Meatpuppets[1] and a serious one - Single purpose accounts[2] are not encouraged. Second although Pdelongchamp didn't mention it there is a possible Conflict of interest[3] problem here - authors or those associated with them should not be adding their books to wikipedia - this site is not for self promotion. I haven't seen one reason to block Pdelongchamp. The diff I see here[4] is an example of proper editing practice - removal of original research[5]. The only issue I could have with Pdelongchamp is their slight failure to assume good faith[6] but this is not a blocking offence. I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from this version [7] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept "Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology" "TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times" 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal" & "The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK" - but only if they were worked into the article. As far as I can see there is no malicous intent from, no wrong doing by and no need for sanction against Pdelongchamp. However I do think there should have been more of a compromise on both sides. Mmeiser was trying to improve the article, he was going about it wrong but the edits seem to be good faith Mmeiser & the vloggers, you should have requested comment[8] in order to build a consensus[9] on the talk page or in the very least Mmeiser should have taken User:Adrian_M._H[10]. advice and created temporary page[11] in their userspace. User:Adrian_M._H[10]. has made a trojan effort to mediate between Pdelongchamp and Mmeiser I recommend that this block request be withdrawn and Adrian_M._H's advice taken forthwith. As an uninvolved party I would be happy to host a temp rewrite page in my userspace if this is of assitance to both sides" -Cailil talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single_purpose_account [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=next&oldid=106060604 [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&oldid=104826246 [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CONSENSUS [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adrian_M._H. [11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Temporary_subpages See the full discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Request_for_blocking_of_user:Pdelongchamp_on_vlogging_article p.s. i'm not rubbing this in anyone's face. just taking the opportunity to clear my name if only in the slightest. i think I'm entitled to try. pd On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy all, > > I hope you're all contributing to the wikipedia article in a well > behaved but persistent manner making sure as to document your > continual frustrations with Pdelongchamp by reverting his endless > deletes in a judicious, yet polite manner citing good reasons for > doing so. Above all, I hope you're trying to actually contribute > something new to the article, but as I know all to well it's hard to > collaborate on something when someone is deleting the object of > collaboration. > > Why the high spirits!? > > Because I've finally figured out, at the suggestion of an admin, what > proper course of action we can take against "said user". > > It's called a "community ban". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ban#Community_ban > > To quote from the article... > > "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's > patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by > an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. > > Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a > consensus of community support for the block, and may note the block > on a relevant noticeboard. The user should be listed on Wikipedia:List > of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported > by a strong consensus. The community may impose either topic bans or > general editing bans." > --end quote-- > > > What's more I have submitted him to the "Community Sanction > Noticeboard" at the below url. Feel free to read it and vote on it. > While I have asked for advisement on the issue in general, not simply > outrifht banning it is a voteable page. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Request_for_blocking_of_user:Pdelongchamp_on_vlogging_article > > tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn > > Just chime in by editing the page and typing in "ban" or "don't ban" > and feel free to elaborate. I do expect that the admins may propose > one or two alternatives as they always do, but it can't possibly hurt > to make your opinions known though it is early in the process. > > Please make sure you're logged into wikipedia and sign your vote or > your vote won't count! > > Please also note: I mentioned in the article I believed I had the > support of at least dozens if not hundreds of members of the > community, so if you don't get out there and vote one way or the other > the whole issue will loose credibility, lessening the chance of a > successful resolution and making me look like an idiot... not that I > mind looking like an idiot. :) > > Now get out there and vote! > > :) > > > == DISPUTE POSTED BELOW FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE == > > What follows is the text of that post in its entirity for your reading > pleasure. Please feel free to tear it apart if I've misrepresented any > of your feelings on this matter. I will gladly update it on wikipedia > to reflect your sentiments. > > I did feel... that prior to my own comments on the matter which may or > may not have colored the debate that I heard the community yelling out > for banning Pdelongchamp from editing the article. > > To tell you the truth I may to a fault de-escallationist, but... all I > want is a temporary ban... a temporary reprieve from the constant > deleting. Perhaps a month or two... to let the article evolve and see > how things go. If he returns then to deleting all contributions > without end then we have both the means at hand and the basis to > qucikly ask for such action again, and with greater consequence. > > That said... do as you feel fit with this, the vlogging article on > wikipedia, and pursuing any other action. I know I may have lost > patience once or twice, but don't follow my lead, I'm an idiot. :) > > > --begin text-- > Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article > > Request assistance, advisement, and possible blocking of user > Pdelongchamp from editing videoblogging article. > > Charges are long term "delete trolling" (aka. "blanking vandalism"), > "retributive editing" and threatening other users with blocking. > > 1) User deletes every contribution at least once. > > Over the last year to two years user has attempted to have article > deleted outright and upon failure has deleted every single one of > thousands upon thousands of edits to the article at least once and > more often then not multiple times despite attempts to appease him > with citations and edits. This despite only one or two original > contributions himself. > > Delete's are almost always automatic, occurring within hour or days of > contribution allowing no time or room for response, contribution or > improvement by other contributors. User's deletes hence dominate > article, disrupting activity on said wikipedia article and prohibiting > other willing users from collaborating. > > User cites frivolous reasons unworthy of automatic and outright > deletion like "original research" and "needs citations" on these > deletes despite repeated attempts to work with him by members of the > community over the long term and repeated citations of wikipedia's > editing policy, particularly the section "perfection is not required" > and information contained therein on proper deletion procedure. > > Please consider this emphasis. User has deleted EVERY contribution at > least once if not multiple times. This is not an exaggeration. Article > has been withered down by user to a stub of less than 500 words > multiple times in the last two years and all contributions (no matter > how obvious the value may seem or how obvious the good intentions of > the contributor) have to be submitted multiple times and/or by > multiple contributors and often debated before said user will admit > them to the article, if said user 'allows' them at all, and often only > to delete them months later. > > Most recently the user deleted over 90% of the article and is > currently involved in an edit war with multiple members of the > community who have attempted to work with him to re-establish the > article. > > 2) Retributive editing > > User has edited other articles or attempted to have them deleted as a > form of retribution. > > In less than 10 edits and a relative number of minutes the user went > from reverting a contribution to the videoblogging article to going > through that users past contributions deleted edits and attempted to > have 3 different articles deleted. Actually succeeding on one count. > > This was admittedly my edit and my contributions, but they were others > articles of which I had only made minor contributions and having > nothing to do with the videoblogging article. It's as plain a case of > retribution as I can find and shows alarming spitefulness and > willingness to jeopardize a great amount by others and on other topics > that are in no way connected to the videoblgging article. > > (note re: "retributive editing" - I could find no other language for > it so you'll have to pardon the terminology. Have been unable to find > any other information on it, if you know it by another name or have > any documentation on subject please respond.) > > 3) User has threatened users with blocking. > > User has repeatedly threatened me with blocking in editing disputes > despite being advised disputes are not a block-able offense. > > Summation > > Despite what can be considered nothing less than tremendous patience > over the past two years because of the above and other actions I > believe the community no longer assumes this user is editing in good > faith. I believe I can speak on behalf of the community on this matter > but am prepared to back it up with dozens if not hundreds of > signatures of community members by whatever method you deem necessary. > I also believe wether blocking be in order, or another form of action > that the community would like a chance to send this user a message > with their consensus on the matter to restore faith in the wikipedia > editing process. > > I believe the user in question wishes the article deleted or at the > least he is trolling the community in an attempt for either attention > or simply to frustrate and waste the time / energy of the community. > He has succeeded in the last two years in driving off many well > intentioned long term editors, and in bringing the evolution of the > article to a complete standstill. > > User is basically holding an entire community of would be contributors > hostage with a delete button. > > I believe there is more than enough evidence (2 years worth) and > community consensus, I can virtually ensure 100's of signatures if > there is a procedure for requesting a block. > > Will be happy to cite in wikipedia history well documented proof of > all above points at your request. > > Please advise on how to proceed. > > Thank you, -Michael Meiser --mmeiser 07:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC) > --end text-- > > Peace, > > -Mike > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
