Re: [videoblogging] Request for user ban on Wikipedia "videoblogging" article
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:R
[videoblogging] Request for user ban on Wikipedia "videoblogging" article
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 in
