Misplaced Pages

User talk:Doctorfluffy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:03, 9 November 2007 editDoctorfluffy (talk | contribs)8,695 edits unblock: response← Previous edit Revision as of 18:48, 9 November 2007 edit undoDoctorfluffy (talk | contribs)8,695 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 141: Line 141:
:I suspect most of the people looking at ANI will check here, so yes, I think that if you want to defend yourself, you could do so here and expect that folks will see it. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) :I suspect most of the people looking at ANI will check here, so yes, I think that if you want to defend yourself, you could do so here and expect that folks will see it. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick reply. I will write up something as soon as I can. ] 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC) ::Thanks for the quick reply. I will write up something as soon as I can. ] 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

==Defense==
*This is primarily for those coming over from the ANI thread.

===Regarding sockpuppetry===
This was my initial unblock request:
{{cquote|I am not a sockpuppet of Pilotbob. He and I work in the same office and share an IP address some of the time, but we independently contribute to Misplaced Pages and it is coincidence that we have same viewpoint on notability.
#If we have made any edits to the same page, it is by happenstance that I came across that page, probably while simply going through the entire AfD category or log page, and my contributions will likely show I made many edits before and after such edits.
#About half my edits should come from a separate IP than the one Pilotbob and I share, since I frequently edit from home, and none of his edits could have ever come from that IP. Likewise, many of his edits would come from his home IP address, which I couldn't have made an edit from.
#Although I am not generally aware what he is doing, it is likely we have both been contributing at the exact same time from separate IP addresses (both from our homes) in a way that would be physically impossible for a single human to accomplish.
A simple look through my contribution history can verify point 1, and a checkuser could easily verify 2 and 3.}}
I openly admit that Pilotbob and I work in the same office building and that we both edit Misplaced Pages from the same IP address during the workday. We also happen to share similiar ideas on notability and how it affects the credibility of Misplaced Pages as a whole. However, we always independently edit. We both find non-notable content independently and nominate it independently. We don't collaborate to get any specific article deleted, nor do we band together against any specific fictional universe. We don't direct or persuade each other in the least. In fact, we don't even discuss our activities. It is likely we have both participated in the same AfDs, but, as I stated in my unblock request, that is pure coincidence as I have voted in 100s of AfDs. It would be more suspicious if I somehow avoided all his AfDs while patrolling the deletion debate catagories. None of the above was addressed during my unblock request. It is extremely disheartening that all of my points were ignored.

===Regarding my contributions===
*This is a response to Phil Sandifers comments from the ANI thread, and for any others in the same vein. Since I have already detailed in depth responses to such concerns, this section will mainly take the form of quotes I have made.

I feel that notability is most important policy for Misplaced Pages. It detracts greatly from the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole when non-notable, unverifiable information pervades the site. Here are some quotes I have made in the past when my conduct was first questioned. First, here is a concise definition of the problems I see in Misplaced Pages as written by an experienced contributor,

{{cquote|{{User:Zscout370/2m}}}}

Here is another quote regarding the same idea from when a user questioned how non-notable content damages Misplaced Pages,

{{cquote|It damages the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. Read my mission statement and the link there. '''Less than 1%''' of the articles on Misplaced Pages have even moderate quality control. That's absolutely ridiculous. '''Numerous articles fail ] and ] by leaps and bounds.''' ] 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)}}

Here is an analogy I used to help elaborate,

{{cquote|Just imagine though if you were at the library, you picked up a reference book, and only 1% of the articles were verified as polished, accurate, and fit for reading. How would you feel about such a book? Naturally, Misplaced Pages isn't a paper book and a lot of things are different due to its unique nature, but whatever feeling you would have about that reference book is what I am looking to fix here. ] 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)}}

I hope the above effectively illustrates my general outlook and shows that I am not here to damage Misplaced Pages or to alienate any users.

Here is an articulated response indicating why I mainly contribute in AfDs and why I would only vote delete,

{{cquote|I wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Misplaced Pages and I have only finite time. I don't like the term deletionist since it connotes forceful removal, so I generally prefer to identify myself as a . The analogy in that link is an apt one and it adequately explains my philosophy in its few sentences. This is going to sound trivial, but if I had more time, I would vote to preserve articles which are notable by my own intepretation of ], which I believe to be the most important policy here. As it stands, I believe notability is too broadly defined, but there is little I can do to change that, so I do my best to remove the "deadwood" by involving myself in AfDs and tagging articles. }}

Please notice the portion about finite time, since another user didn't seem to fully grasp the implication of it before. ''Since I don't have unlimited time, yet I have a set goal, it is logical for me to only attempt to advance that goal. Doing otherwise would illogical.'' This next section goes on to discuss my experiences in AfDs and how it determined my usual conduct,

{{cquote|I understand your comment about credibility and fleshing out votes, but having participated in a fair number of AfDs now, they almost always degenerate into a simple listing of policies followed by the latecomers merely reiterating the votes of the first few editors. I've read many of the policies and precedents in place here and the theory of an AfD being a discussion, rather than a majority vote, is a nice one, but in practice that's rarely the case. The system evolved into its current form independently of me and I have little choice but to participate in that system as it currently exists in the way that most editors do. Besides, strictly speaking, any vote is a contribution to the discussion, even if contains no rationale whatsoever. It may not sway the closing admin as much, but it still let's them know that there is one more person who has a sufficiently strong opinion about the matter to cast a vote. Thanks to technology, that only takes a moment, but traditionally an official declaration of one's viewpoint "on paper" is rather weighty in the eyes of authorities.}}

I truly believe poor content hurts Misplaced Pages more than good content helps. Specifically, ''I strongly believe that removing poor content is just as noble a goal as adding good content''. I take personal offense when someone trivializes my contributions because they don't fit into that user's predetermined concept of how to improve Misplaced Pages.

Participating in AfDs is stressful since many users typically have strong viewpoints on the removal of information, especially when it's content they enjoy. It requires knowledge of policy and precedent that many casual users aren't familiar with and likely aren't even aware of. It requires one to sometimes make detailed arguments against another person's points while remaining cool headed and civil. In short, it's not particularly "fun".

But I do it. Because I like Misplaced Pages. I don't want to see the credibility of the project ruined. The policies of ] exist for a reason yet they are constantly disrespected both by uninformed users and the articles they create. I am here to simply make sure some of the core policies that make up the foundation of this incredible project receive the respect they deserve. ] 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:48, 9 November 2007

User talk:Doctorfluffy/Archive 1

AfDs

I have noticed you posting rapidly in multiple AfDs lately, something I once got in trouble for last year. So, I just wanted to caution you about not repeating the mistake I made. Also, here are some other tips for discussions: you posted Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Congressional_endorsements_for_the_2008_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=167888651 this in a discussion; please read this. You posted Veni%2C_Vidi%2C_Vici_in_popular_culture&diff=prev&oldid=167888500 this and this; please read this. It is important to elaborate on reasons and to avoid words like "cruft" or "I don't like it" arguments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am familiar with WP:ATA, but that however is only an essay, whereas many of my votes are based on WP:NOT, which is actual policy. The WP:NOT collection is really just a formalization of the arguments I typically make; listcruft = WP:DIRECTORY, gamecruft = WP:NOT#GUIDE, futurecruft = WP:CRYSTAL, etc. In fact, using shorthand terms ("cruft" and "per nom" included) is specifically mentioned in the guide to deletion. That said, I suppose could reference specific policies more often, instead of using the common slang that many people employ. Doctorfluffy 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at your !votes and noms so far, and i agree with about 3/4 of the ones on subjects I think I have some understanding about, which I is more than I do with quite a lot of people. . But I think it will add to credibility if you make it clear what sort of articles you do say keep for--just as I !vote delete about one-third of the time when I think an article deserves it and i have something particular to say. It also will help to give somewhat more extended reasons. Not only quote the policy, but explain just how the article meets them. Saying "for x-cruft" says only "I think it is ....", but if you say why you think it is, it may convince other people. It's an argument, not a vote. DGG (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Misplaced Pages and I have only finite time. I don't like the term deletionist since it connotes forceful removal, so I generally prefer to identify myself as a reductionist. The analogy in that link is an apt one and it adequately explains my philosophy in its few sentences. This is going to sound trivial, but if I had more time, I would vote to preserve articles which are notable by my own intepretation of WP:N, which I believe to be the most important policy here. As it stands, I believe notability is too broadly defined, but there is little I can do to change that, so I do my best to remove the "deadwood" by involving myself in AfDs and tagging articles.
I understand your comment about credibility and fleshing out votes, but having participated in a fair number of AfDs now, they almost always degenerate into a simple listing of policies followed by the latecomers merely reiterating the votes of the first few editors. I've read many of the policies and precedents in place here and the theory of an AfD being a discussion, rather than a majority vote, is a nice one, but in practice that's rarely the case. The system evolved into its current form independently of me and I have little choice but to participate in that system as it currently exists in the way that most editors do. Besides, strictly speaking, any vote is a contribution to the discussion, even if contains no rationale whatsoever. It may not sway the closing admin as much, but it still let's them know that there is one more person who has a sufficiently strong opinion about the matter to cast a vote. Thanks to technology, that only takes a moment, but traditionally an official declaration of one's viewpoint "on paper" is rather weighty in the eyes of authorities. Doctorfluffy 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I came here worrying because your behaviour - objecting to every or almost every keep vote - is ordinarily characteristic of editors shortly before they storm off the project spewing obscenities and insults, but I see now that that doesn't apply to you, so never mind.
Anyway, I don't believe you should object if others characterise you as deletionist, as you are thoroughly devoted to the destruction of information. Cheers. --Kizor 22:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh gimme a break. The person right above you was pointing out how I tersely throw out policies and "per others" votes when AfDs are intended to be a discussion, not merely a majority vote. So in response, I start trying engender such discussion by actually replying to other editors' !votes and what do I get? Someone else complaining that I am being too vocal and that I shouldn't be responding to votes! I can in good conscience say that I feel I'm acting appropriately within the set policies and guidelines. You however are not. Stating that I am "thoroughly devoted to the destruction of information" is quite close to a personal attack, especially when I articulated my viewpoints on article inclusion, topic notability, and the label "deletionist" directly above. I don't see what purpose you could possibly have had by coming here other than to insult me or anger me. Doctorfluffy 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Frick, frick, frick, frick frickfrickfrick perkele frick. That wasn't what I was going for at all. I I never intended to insult you, what would be the point? Look, can we back up and try this again? Here's how my intent might have been phrased by someone without foot-in-mouth disease and superiority in social acuity to a clam:
"Hey, I was worried about you for a moment there but turns out that I was wrong, so never mind. But BTW, while I'm here, try not to take being called a deletionist personally even though you don't like the word, since you will get called that while you delete a lot of things, which you do.


What a fetid piece of crap my previous message was. --Kizor 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, we can still be wikifriends. Doctorfluffy 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I realize that you are well within policy guidelines. I think the previous post was in response to a notable trend in downsizing articles. So-called "purges" for notability are a hot-button issue, as I am sure you are aware of. What I am trying to get at is this. I personally believe that sheer breadth is the biggest selling point for Misplaced Pages, and policy or not, reducing that breadth should not be done lightly. I agree there are things that are indeed not notable, but instead of nomination for deletion, I would prefer to clean them up or merge them. Whether you like it or not there is a large subset of the Misplaced Pages community that is heavily interested in "cruft." Rather than just brushing that subsection off to the side by moving for deletion every time, try to cleanup more often. "Cruft" is important to some, and when you get down to it notability is a function of population. Just because a benchmark population has not come in to contact with a certain piece of information does not necessarily mean that it is somehow less valuable. However, I respect your rights as a user. I would just ask you to consider that the more information WP can incorporate, the better. Hagan jared 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
since we are having this interesting and posibly productive discussion, I do not agree that " almost always degenerate into a simple listing of policies followed by the latecomers merely reiterating the votes of the first few editors. I've read many of the policies and precedents in place here and the theory of an AfD being a discussion, rather than a majority vote, is a nice one, but in practice that's rarely the case. " Sure, this is the case for many of the obvious ones, which is why I too avoid them, but in a batch of say 1200 AfDs, about 10 or 20 do get a real discussion. The dynamics i see in such case is a batch of pile on votes at first, followed by someone improving the article or finding an argument for it, or strongly against it, and then a change in the pattern during the five days. I suggest you look for more subtle things like that here, where a reasoned argument from you might make a difference.
And what I said remains, if you always say delete, we dont know what your standards of keep are. For all we know you might think everything of a type non-notable. From what you say here it isnt true, so the thing to do is to show it. DGG (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to my initial response regarding keep votes. Specifically, I have only finite time. Doctorfluffy 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
drfluffy, I've looked at most of the articles you've recently AfDed and I agree with your decision to delete on a few. I just think that deletion is not something to be immediately used. It's a last resort. Be reasonable here, what harm does a borderline or even less than notable article really do? Sure there are blatantly disruptive practices like invention of memes and such things, but a little bit of fan cruft never hurt anyone. It only alienates those who care about the material. Hagan jared 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It damages the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. Read my mission statement and the link there. Less than 1% of the articles on Misplaced Pages have even moderate quality control. That's absolutely ridiculous. Numerous articles fail WP:N and WP:V by leaps and bounds. It's getting to the point where Misplaced Pages is becoming a joke. Doctorfluffy 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that WP is becoming a joke. With literally everyone I know it's the first choice in the search for information. Verifiability is a necessity. I'll grant you that. I just don't don't share your zeal in setting such high notability standards. WP is so much more than an encyclopedia, whether or not policy or guidelines admit it. Hagan jared 20:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "becoming a joke" was a poor choice of words. Just imagine though if you were at the library, you picked up a reference book, and only 1% of the articles were verified as polished, accurate, and fit for reading. How would you feel about such a book? Naturally, Misplaced Pages isn't a paper book and a lot of things are different due to its unique nature, but whatever feeling you would have about that reference book is what I am looking to fix here. Doctorfluffy 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you trying to apply book standards to a database ?
Anyway /me thinks you should have a talk with Mr Sturgeon (don't get too excited here, it's referencing its sources) --86.210.24.168 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Which !vote are you referring to? I probably mistyped. Sometimes even I forget which WP:ALPHABETSOUP policy is which. Doctorfluffy 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of opera articles

Re Graham Vick this is to explain that the most important source for opera articles, indeed all music articles, is Grove. If a person or work is in Grove that does establish notability as well as any other printed source. Thank you. -- Kleinzach 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that you're knowledgeable on the subject and likely telling the truth, but I should point out that the Grove article, which you are using to indicate notability of another topic, is itself unsourced and doesn't establish notability. I'll refrain from being a nuisance and won't tag the article for the time being, but it would be nice if you could add some references. Besides, if it's even a fraction as notable as you say, finding sources shouldn't be difficult at all. Doctorfluffy 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Before you put any more tags on opera articles, please have a look at Grove. You will find that the articles there are extensively referenced. If you are going to start challenging major reference works it will cause a lot of problems for WP. Thousands of articles are involved. BTW, have you tagged any other opera pages? -- Kleinzach 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The exact article you linked to me above, New Grove Dictionary of Opera, is currently unreferenced. I was merely pointing out that fact. I am not trying to "challenge" that it is a major reference work; I am simply respectfully requesting, as a non-expert on the subject and fellow Wikipedian, that you reference the article which you yourself linked to me to prove notability of another article. Doctorfluffy 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please check Grove again - same book, same edition. The article in question in Grove was referenced. (Even it it hadn't been Grove is authoritative enough anyway.) -- Kleinzach 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You just added a link to the official site a few moments ago, which may or may not be a proper source. Please review WP:V and WP:RS for information regarding sourcing. In any case, I've looked at the wikiproject for opera and Grove does appear to be a major work in the field. Therefore, I think it's safe to say this problem is simply one of sourcing, not one of notability (WP:N, speficially WP:BK), and frankly only notability concerns me. I don't really want to waste any more time on the matter. Best of luck. Doctorfluffy 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's getting to the point where Misplaced Pages is becoming a joke. Doctorfluffy 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you so much that I want to report you to the police for stealing my thoughts.

There are indeed a whole pile of articles on Misplaced Pages - who knows, maybe half of them - that are sheer absolute vanity-spam. There are not enough people to even delete all the new vanity-spam that gets posted here every day, much less the tons of spam already lodged deep in the bowels of the database. Misplaced Pages is already targeted by every advertiser, politician, and myspace band on the planet; you'd think the embarassment of Virgil Griffith's Wikitracker would have brought about a big change of attitude here among the editors, but it doesn't seem to be much better than a few months ago.

Of the non-vanity articles, maybe half of those are fancruft that wouldn't have much use to anyone outside of a fan group. I personally like D&D articles - heck, I've even sat here reading the Misplaced Pages articles on (lessee...) Obox-Ob and Ivid the Undying. But I don't think Misplaced Pages should be a resource for gamers, or TV show trivia buffs, or pretty much anything else to do with transient elements of pop culture. I agree with many, though, that any editor who even attempts to delete the 2000 Simpsons articles here will probably end up disemboweled by an angry mob; some cruft is just too holy, and too much effort was invested in it.

And of the remainder, 90% of the non-cruft non-vanispam articles are completely unsourced. Geez, if someone feels so importantly about an article that they have to pull a snit in an AfD discussion, why not spend 5 minutes referencing the article properly? You ask someone for references and most of the time all they do is put a frigging website link at the bottom of the page - and then they think they've done a fabulous job.

A few months ago I felt that while Misplaced Pages could have been the greatest invention of mankind to date, right up there with Gutenberg's moveable type, it's instead being dragged down into a choking morass by people who proudly add articles on 10,000 topics but don't want to source any of them, don't want to prove notability, and don't want to contribute to a sourced encyclopedia. Many people are actually proud to have added over a thousand articles on (e.g.) Canadian unsigned indie-rock bands, or on D&D plants, or on Things Wile E. Coyote Dropped From The Top Of A Cliff.

If you were to put all of Misplaced Pages on a USB RAM drive and beam it 200 years into the future, past the coming apocalypse, the scattered remains of the human race would not find a great resource of all mankind's knowledge with which to rebuild society. They wouldn't even find a great resource of a couple little bits of the more important knowledge. They'd only find untold gigabytes of total nonsense that would make their heads spin at how much time the people of the 21st century invested in trivia and sales pitches.

My only advice to you is: take regular breaks. Only allow yourself to come here 2 days a week. Getting involved in the AfD side of things basically ruined my enjoyment of Misplaced Pages, and I had to relinquish my account for a few months so that I could appreciate the good articles again.

Anyway... quit stealing my thoughts. And if you're forming a cabal of über-deletionists (sorry - über-reductionists), I'm in. We'd be better off doing this crap in shifts. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I could go into mini-rant of my own, but I'll keep it simple: Your analysis is perfect. The world (especially Misplaced Pages) is a better place because you exist.
I'd definitely been into forming a group of like-minded souls. There are quite a few users who frequent AfDs, some of which surely would be interested as well. It frightens me how many people don't understand the core concepts for notability, so it would be nice to have a group to help spread the word. I have to go because the new episode of "Everyone Loves Hypnotoad" is on and strangely I have the overwhelming urge to watch it. (ps thanks for adding the exploding organisms template, that's a new one to me) Doctorfluffy 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
We could call the group Suicide Commandos of the RedUctionist Brigade (SCRUB)... but maybe just calling ourselves "Quality Control" would ruffle fewer feathers. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ever since Elara's Uber-Deletionist Cabal went under..well, let's just say I'd be in. -Wooty   16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Hypnotoad. On behalf of everyone who watched their work disappear into the ether because you found it easier to destroy than to create: see ya! Just Some Guy 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I never voted to delete any of your personal fancruft... until, well, I saw this post. Ha! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Exploding organisms
Topics
See also


"Makedonsko Devoiche"

In the Articles for deletion thread for this article you voted to delete it because there were not enough sources to show the notability of the article. However now several very significant sources have been added to the article that show the notability of it. They are:

  • BBC ]
  • Sheet Music ]
  • Evansville Folkdancers ]
  • Soros Foundation ]
  • Preformed by famous guitarist Martha Masters ]
  • US Government Website ]

An certain editor has claimed to have "analyzed" these sources and has unfortunately made some false statements. For example claiming that the BBC, Soros Foundation or US government are not reliable or notable is definitely untrue. Please reconsider your decision to delete this song. Several editors have compared this song to epic historic songs. This is what one editor said "It's analogous to deleting Waltzing Matilda, I Still Call Australia Home and The Wild Colonial Boy which are songs well known by Anglophones."

Thank you Ireland101 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So apperently you and I are the same person.

{{sockpuppet|IAmSasori|evidence=]. Ridernyc 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

It be useful to me and other editors who are interested in the Game-related deletions if you could add a deletion sorting tag to any game related AFDs at the time of nomination. Please have a glance at WikiProject Deletion sorting for guidance as to how this works and why it is benefical. In a nutshell: adding certain tags helps with identifying game-related deletions by the addition of the following tag and then adding the AFD to Game-related deletions page:

This example is done by adding this tag to the AfD by adding the following text:

{{subst:delsort|Game-related}}<small>—~~~~</small>.

Alternatively, you might want to add this tag to the AfD by adding the following text:

{{subst:delsort|Fictional characters}}<small>—~~~~</small>.

This way we can all keep an eye out on game-deletions.--Gavin Collins 10:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You got it. Doctorfluffy 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

HALLO!

zOMG!!! It's a barnstar!

AndalusianNaugahyde 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad Joke

^^^ The above quote (from the infamous DoctorFluffy meatpuppet trial) made me laugh. Maybe not terribly funny, but then again, neither is WP:BJAODN. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doctorfluffy (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet of Pilotbob. He and I work in the same office and share an IP address some of the time, but we independently contribute to Misplaced Pages and it is coincidence that we have same viewpoint on notability. If we have made any edits to the same page, it is by happenstance that I came across that page, probably while simply going through the entire AfD category or log page, and my contributions will likely show I made many edits before and after such edits. About half my edits should come from a separate IP than the one Pilotbob and I share, since I frequently edit from home, and none of his edits could have ever come from that IP. Likewise, many of his edits would come from his home IP address, which I couldn't have made an edit from. Although I am not generally aware what he is doing, it is likely we have both been contributing at the exact same time from separate IP addresses (both from our homes) in a way that would be physically impossible for a single human to accomplish. A simple look through my contribution history can verify point 1, and a checkuser could easily verify 2 and 3.

Decline reason:

Evidence of sockpuppetry + disruptive and trolling use of Misplaced Pages = eminently blockable. — Phil Sandifer 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • I responded to the evidence of sockpuppetry. You addressed absolutely nothing I said in my unblock request. Checkuser would show that we physically could not be the same person.
  • Where was I disruptive?
  • Where did I troll?

I really hope that simply having a reductionist outlook is not why you so brusquely disregarded my unblock request. Doctorfluffy 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion of this block going on now at WP:ANI. Thank you for your concise, specific, and courteous unblock request; admins really hate undoing other admins actions, so there will likely be some discussion before anything actually happens. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is exceedingly frustrating to watch the ANI thread and not be able to defend myself. I responded to the exact concerns Phil Sandifer has brought up when another editor raised such concerns on my talk page a few weeks ago. Without going into details and simply reiterating that discussion here, I believe my response clearly shows that my intent is not to damage Misplaced Pages and that I feel I am increasing the quality of the project by removing poor content. That conversation is a only few sections up from this sentence. Are there any provisions in policy for me to participate in this discussion? If I drafted a response here, could someone direct the participants of the ANI discussion to view it? Doctorfluffy 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect most of the people looking at ANI will check here, so yes, I think that if you want to defend yourself, you could do so here and expect that folks will see it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I will write up something as soon as I can. Doctorfluffy 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Defense

  • This is primarily for those coming over from the ANI thread.

Regarding sockpuppetry

This was my initial unblock request:

I am not a sockpuppet of Pilotbob. He and I work in the same office and share an IP address some of the time, but we independently contribute to Misplaced Pages and it is coincidence that we have same viewpoint on notability.
  1. If we have made any edits to the same page, it is by happenstance that I came across that page, probably while simply going through the entire AfD category or log page, and my contributions will likely show I made many edits before and after such edits.
  2. About half my edits should come from a separate IP than the one Pilotbob and I share, since I frequently edit from home, and none of his edits could have ever come from that IP. Likewise, many of his edits would come from his home IP address, which I couldn't have made an edit from.
  3. Although I am not generally aware what he is doing, it is likely we have both been contributing at the exact same time from separate IP addresses (both from our homes) in a way that would be physically impossible for a single human to accomplish.

A simple look through my contribution history can verify point 1, and a checkuser could easily verify 2 and 3.

I openly admit that Pilotbob and I work in the same office building and that we both edit Misplaced Pages from the same IP address during the workday. We also happen to share similiar ideas on notability and how it affects the credibility of Misplaced Pages as a whole. However, we always independently edit. We both find non-notable content independently and nominate it independently. We don't collaborate to get any specific article deleted, nor do we band together against any specific fictional universe. We don't direct or persuade each other in the least. In fact, we don't even discuss our activities. It is likely we have both participated in the same AfDs, but, as I stated in my unblock request, that is pure coincidence as I have voted in 100s of AfDs. It would be more suspicious if I somehow avoided all his AfDs while patrolling the deletion debate catagories. None of the above was addressed during my unblock request. It is extremely disheartening that all of my points were ignored.

Regarding my contributions

  • This is a response to Phil Sandifers comments from the ANI thread, and for any others in the same vein. Since I have already detailed in depth responses to such concerns, this section will mainly take the form of quotes I have made.

I feel that notability is most important policy for Misplaced Pages. It detracts greatly from the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole when non-notable, unverifiable information pervades the site. Here are some quotes I have made in the past when my conduct was first questioned. First, here is a concise definition of the problems I see in Misplaced Pages as written by an experienced contributor,


User:Zscout370/2m

Here is another quote regarding the same idea from when a user questioned how non-notable content damages Misplaced Pages,


It damages the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. Read my mission statement and the link there. Less than 1% of the articles on Misplaced Pages have even moderate quality control. That's absolutely ridiculous. Numerous articles fail WP:N and WP:V by leaps and bounds. Doctorfluffy 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an analogy I used to help elaborate,


Just imagine though if you were at the library, you picked up a reference book, and only 1% of the articles were verified as polished, accurate, and fit for reading. How would you feel about such a book? Naturally, Misplaced Pages isn't a paper book and a lot of things are different due to its unique nature, but whatever feeling you would have about that reference book is what I am looking to fix here. Doctorfluffy 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope the above effectively illustrates my general outlook and shows that I am not here to damage Misplaced Pages or to alienate any users.

Here is an articulated response indicating why I mainly contribute in AfDs and why I would only vote delete,


I wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Misplaced Pages and I have only finite time. I don't like the term deletionist since it connotes forceful removal, so I generally prefer to identify myself as a reductionist. The analogy in that link is an apt one and it adequately explains my philosophy in its few sentences. This is going to sound trivial, but if I had more time, I would vote to preserve articles which are notable by my own intepretation of WP:N, which I believe to be the most important policy here. As it stands, I believe notability is too broadly defined, but there is little I can do to change that, so I do my best to remove the "deadwood" by involving myself in AfDs and tagging articles.

Please notice the portion about finite time, since another user didn't seem to fully grasp the implication of it before. Since I don't have unlimited time, yet I have a set goal, it is logical for me to only attempt to advance that goal. Doing otherwise would illogical. This next section goes on to discuss my experiences in AfDs and how it determined my usual conduct,


I understand your comment about credibility and fleshing out votes, but having participated in a fair number of AfDs now, they almost always degenerate into a simple listing of policies followed by the latecomers merely reiterating the votes of the first few editors. I've read many of the policies and precedents in place here and the theory of an AfD being a discussion, rather than a majority vote, is a nice one, but in practice that's rarely the case. The system evolved into its current form independently of me and I have little choice but to participate in that system as it currently exists in the way that most editors do. Besides, strictly speaking, any vote is a contribution to the discussion, even if contains no rationale whatsoever. It may not sway the closing admin as much, but it still let's them know that there is one more person who has a sufficiently strong opinion about the matter to cast a vote. Thanks to technology, that only takes a moment, but traditionally an official declaration of one's viewpoint "on paper" is rather weighty in the eyes of authorities.

I truly believe poor content hurts Misplaced Pages more than good content helps. Specifically, I strongly believe that removing poor content is just as noble a goal as adding good content. I take personal offense when someone trivializes my contributions because they don't fit into that user's predetermined concept of how to improve Misplaced Pages.

Participating in AfDs is stressful since many users typically have strong viewpoints on the removal of information, especially when it's content they enjoy. It requires knowledge of policy and precedent that many casual users aren't familiar with and likely aren't even aware of. It requires one to sometimes make detailed arguments against another person's points while remaining cool headed and civil. In short, it's not particularly "fun".

But I do it. Because I like Misplaced Pages. I don't want to see the credibility of the project ruined. The policies of WP:NOT exist for a reason yet they are constantly disrespected both by uninformed users and the articles they create. I am here to simply make sure some of the core policies that make up the foundation of this incredible project receive the respect they deserve. Doctorfluffy 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Doctorfluffy: Difference between revisions Add topic