Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer
Closure?[edit]
I call for closure. This has been running for nearly two months with no consensus. There have been many good points raised, but I don't think we need an ongoing project to discuss the work of one editor, who at last count was the 27th most active Wikipedian. Yes, he has a lot of AfDs, but he has a lot of everything. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Seconded. There is clearly no consensus here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- An RFC/U is not about "consensus", it's an intervention for a user who is acting in an inappropriate manner--in this case, that would be you. The next step is up to you: you can either modify your inappropriate behavior, or you can deal with the consequences of continuing it. The biggest "there is no problem here" view, that by Sandstein, has 13 supports including your own. The biggest "there is a problem here" view, mine, has 21 supports, including my own. If that were any AfD, any admin who closed against the numerical consensus would be hauled before DRV to explain himself or herself and overturned absent some really compelling reason. So let's be perfectly clear here: you appear to be both missing the point AND wrong about consensus. Please do not continue in this vein. Please modify your behavior appropriately and continue contributing. While I disagree with many of your stances on deleting articles, most specifically you demanding that everyone else do the cleanup work, I do not want to see Wikipedia lose you as an editor. Based on what I've seen of other RFC/U's, I am not very optimistic: your attitude and response to constructive criticism is very, very much like those of other editors who are burning out and don't respect the community enough to care about the feedback processes, and that bodes terribly poorly for your long-term willingness to work within the community framework here. This is supposed to be a wake-up call; please heed it as such. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can see that my behavior hasn't been the best, and I think those who are against me do have valid points even if the original tone of the RFC/U felt more like a witch hunt. I have taken to heart a lot of what's been brought up here, and have tried to be more cautious in what I nominate for XFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- An RFC/U is not about "consensus", it's an intervention for a user who is acting in an inappropriate manner--in this case, that would be you. The next step is up to you: you can either modify your inappropriate behavior, or you can deal with the consequences of continuing it. The biggest "there is no problem here" view, that by Sandstein, has 13 supports including your own. The biggest "there is a problem here" view, mine, has 21 supports, including my own. If that were any AfD, any admin who closed against the numerical consensus would be hauled before DRV to explain himself or herself and overturned absent some really compelling reason. So let's be perfectly clear here: you appear to be both missing the point AND wrong about consensus. Please do not continue in this vein. Please modify your behavior appropriately and continue contributing. While I disagree with many of your stances on deleting articles, most specifically you demanding that everyone else do the cleanup work, I do not want to see Wikipedia lose you as an editor. Based on what I've seen of other RFC/U's, I am not very optimistic: your attitude and response to constructive criticism is very, very much like those of other editors who are burning out and don't respect the community enough to care about the feedback processes, and that bodes terribly poorly for your long-term willingness to work within the community framework here. This is supposed to be a wake-up call; please heed it as such. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree it has been running for a long time...which points to the level of disruption, directly or not, caused by the editor under scrutiny. Disruptionists cannot be allowed to run around Wikipedia freely; that's not wikipedia's MO. If anything, I would say to Jclemens, this is not the time for "pleases": there were no "pleases" from TPH in the multitude of innappropriate behavior ocassions when s/he acted in ways that brought him/her to the scrutiny of the largest number of Wikipedians I have ever seen get involved in one single scrutiny case. To be more precise: no one is irreplaceable; not even in Wikipedia. Phrases such as "those who are against me" instead of the humbler "those who have presented evidence against my behavior" do not aid TPH at all. I am stopping short of using the word "arrogance", but clearly this editor doesn't get it -- even after this having been running "for nearly two months." My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
- I don't think there is a consensus either way. If this was an AfD, I could easily see it being closed as no consensus a long time ago. It would not be appropriate to close it as for or against, though. Anyway, I think that a lot of good points have been made. I don't see the purpose, however, of having a two-month running project to discuss one editor's work, with no end in sight. The fact that this has been running so long simply highlights that there is no consensus and none in sight. All the good points have been made already. RFC/U is valuable and the comments made have been constructive, but RFC/U is not the Spanish Inquisition--it does not end when the subject recants. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yup. Time to close this. TPH is now fully aware that some people have a problem with his AFD nominations and has said he'll take that to heart. Since nobody has been able to show any actual policy violations, and consensus has been vary much against any sanctions such as arbcom or editing restrictions, it's clear that nothing more can be accomplished. This RFC from its beginning has been nothing but a load of vague complaints with no concrete aim, and so it's been riddled with bad off-topic suggestions like "let's make BEFORE policy so we have a stick to whack him with" or "let's run a bot on his AFD nominations so we can tut-tut some more". Completely useless. Reyk YO! 08:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would just like to comment on TPH's statement that he/she is being more careful about nominating articles for deletion. I don't see how this was reflected in his/her behaviour recently on Sharon Davis (disambiguation), where he/she nominated an article for speedy deletion without informing the creator. As creator, I left a polite message asking TPH to remember to inform creators if he/she does this. TPH then re-added removed speedy tag rather than prod, again without telling me. Despite two polite messages, TPH wouldn't respond to me. In this case, the disambiguation page clearly met the guidelines. It's really frustrating to have my work treated like that, and not even a one-line response to messages. I think TPH needs to be really careful of this. Boleyn (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Re-tagging most CSD tags is clear cut unacceptable. Report this behaviour straight to WP:ANI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- The dab page in question had only one blue link at the time and three red ones. I fail to see how such a page would not meet {{Db-disambig}}, and only re-tagged once. Either way, someone soon created articles on the redlinks, so I backed away from the situation. Furthermore, I believe the G6 family of CSDs does not automatically warn in twinkle. I should not have reinstated the tag, but that's the only time I've done that in the course of the RFC/U. The only reason I did not talk things over with Boelyn was because the situtation was quickly rendered moot by the redlinks turning blue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's hasty, impatient tagging. "I fail to see how such a page would not meet {{Db-disambig}}" – Boleyn already explained to you, not once but twice, that we have guidelines at MOS:DABRL that red links are acceptable on disambiguation pages if they meet certain conditions. Instead of replying to her, "Thanks for letting me know about those guidelines; I was not aware of them", your response to her was to tell her that the page she wrote looked "stupid and pointless". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, that was not the best thing to say. I was about to retract that comment due to the redlinks turning blue, but by the time I was ready to, the AFD was already closed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's hasty, impatient tagging. "I fail to see how such a page would not meet {{Db-disambig}}" – Boleyn already explained to you, not once but twice, that we have guidelines at MOS:DABRL that red links are acceptable on disambiguation pages if they meet certain conditions. Instead of replying to her, "Thanks for letting me know about those guidelines; I was not aware of them", your response to her was to tell her that the page she wrote looked "stupid and pointless". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- The dab page in question had only one blue link at the time and three red ones. I fail to see how such a page would not meet {{Db-disambig}}, and only re-tagged once. Either way, someone soon created articles on the redlinks, so I backed away from the situation. Furthermore, I believe the G6 family of CSDs does not automatically warn in twinkle. I should not have reinstated the tag, but that's the only time I've done that in the course of the RFC/U. The only reason I did not talk things over with Boelyn was because the situtation was quickly rendered moot by the redlinks turning blue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Re-tagging most CSD tags is clear cut unacceptable. Report this behaviour straight to WP:ANI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Proposal: TenPoundHammer acknowledges that some of his nominations to AfD are problematic and will endeavor to make nominations more in line with current community consensus
Does this work for everyone? It suggests future improvement, it doesn't slap the manacles of shame on, and it closes out this invulnerable RfC/U. Thoughts Hasteur (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Invulnerable? Interminable, perhaps. Nobody Ent 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)