User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Arbcom candidacy

This page is to document my Nov 2017 idea to enter the election have the opportunity to volunteer as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

Useful links:
 * User:Ealdgyth/2017 Arb Election votes
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Questions
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Statement
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates
 * User:Power~enwiki/ACE2017


 * All comments made on my talk page related to my candidacy have been moved here.

ArbCom candidacy
You have been asked not to nominate articles for AfD. You have just been told to leave the IRC channel alone. Your work at AfC doesn't seem to be uncontroversial either. You are trying way too hard, and going for ArbCom on top of that will only get you a massive amount of negative attention and backlash. I would urge you to withdraw your nomination as you really have absolutely zero chance of getting the necessary support for a seat on ArbCom. ArbCom members need to have a very thorough understanding of policy, and the trust of most experienced editors, which they have gained through years of work (on the encyclopedia, and in dispute resolution), in nearly all cases evidenced by the fact that they became an admin at least a year before they ran for ArbCom.

You are free to continue with your candidacy, but I think it is a really bad idea. Fram (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fram, its an election, if people want an actual lawyer - I am here. They have not had the choice before. I already had enough emails which one forwards to the police without needing to worry too much about "negative backlash". If I don't get elected I will busy myself doing something else, (like translating articles about Cornish towns into other languages and other interesting work). I have discussed the idea at length on IRC already beforehand for your information, and will not be withdrawing.
 * I think you would meet all the criteria you put forward there, have you considered standing? You aren’t afraid to do the right thing, I saw your RfC on the refdesk closure. Dysklyver  20:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As a point of information, there have been lawyers on the Arbitration Committee before, including myself for eight years and currently. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is excellent, thanks for saying. Keep up the good work: Dysklyver  21:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fram. There were multiple editors in IRC, including myself, that advised you that putting your name forward would be a very bad idea, so I am not sure where you "discussed the idea at length" or got the notion that anyone supported your idea. You have continued this trend of not paying attention or listening to those who are trying to help you or point you in the right direction. To add onto Fram's list, you tried to create a bot that multiple people told you wouldn't be a good idea. You only gave up on it when Iridescent laid it out for you pretty harshly (as was required to get the point across). You also just recently had problems with nominating things for speedy deletion that we had to lay out for you to understand, and even then you showed resistance to learning from those trying to help you. Nihlus  21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well to be more precise it was a manual AWB task and I had to ask three times before anyone clarified what the problem was. I discussed the idea at length on  to gauge the concept, and no I am not expecting support from those I have disagreed with, we should see three or four more people here yet.  Dysklyver  21:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at your logs, I think that you are much closer to a block or some topic bans (e.g. on everything to do with deletion) than to getting any position of trust here. This is offensive, the violent death of 35 people, reported by CBC and others, is not "borderline A7" material: I commented on your tragic prod of Carabao (band) at the ArbCom questions page (and I note that you also tried to delete some of their albums for the same reasons). Prodding an article on scheduled elections for next year per WP:CRYSTAL also shows a lack of knowledge of our policies. Fram (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Fram's PRODs
You may want to edit your response to 's question. PRODing the 2017 World Table Tennis Championships as WP:CRYSTAL in, oh, 2013, isn't exactly a "clear error". &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The full text of that article, 23 hours after creation, was "The 2017 World Table Tennis Championships are scheduled to be held in ? from 2015." Fram (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Boy howdy, how did you ever bring yourself to PROD such a thoroughly informative article? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeedy, not the most useful article. But my point was primarily in response to criticism from Fram regarding my prod of a similar article concerning the 2018 Icelandic Municipal elections. Prodding an article on scheduled elections for next year per WP:CRYSTAL also shows a lack of knowledge of our policies - my implication is that a local election is no more or less notable than a world level sports event. Dysklyver  15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * An election with a fixed date for the coming year, vs. an event with an unknown date or place (and no widespread attention for cities or countries going to bid for it, like the Olympics have)? That's exactly why one is a crystal violation, and the other isn't. Notability was not the argument for deletion here in either case. Fram (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The dates for the World Table Tennis Championships are as fixed as the Icelandic Municipal elections, neither are certain. Notability is directly relevant, and in this example is the minimum requirement for sources to meet the requirement for verification put forward in the WP:Crystal policy. I truly think you have no concept on how I look at these things. Notability is a guideline which explains how to judge the state of sourcing required for meeting the WP:V policy, however it may also be used to interpret the WP:NOT policy in a similar way. A guideline is no more or less than an explanation of how to interpret a policy. (and an essay is a guideline on how to interpret a guideline). Therefore any lack of sources on something that is obviously true is a notability issue, and lack of sources on something that is not obviously true is a verifiability issue, and to compound that, and future-class article is also a WP:Crystal issue. Dysklyver  15:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be utterly confused between "verifiable" and "verified". An article with no or poor sources is not unverifiable, and having good sources in an article is not required by WP:V (excepting things like BLPs and so on). The 2017 TT world championships were likely to happen (although it is dubious that an actual date was fixed in 2013 already), but otherwise completely unverifiable as no independent sources were discussing them (as reflected by the state of the article at the time of deletion). The 2018 municipal elections in Iceland were not only verifiable with an exact date from official sources, but also already discussed in reliable, independent sources like this newspaper article). It has its own tag at the Icalndic version of the BBC[http://www.ruv.is/tag/sveitarstjornarkosningar-2018. You claim "Notability is directly relevant, and in this example is the minimum requirement for sources to meet the requirement for verification", which doesn't make sense at all. Sources for verification may well be abundantly available without any of them being relevant for notability. "Notability" is not "a minimum requirement for sources", independent sources are a minimum requirement for notability. You are right that I "have no concept on how [you] look at these things", as it escaped me that you could have such things so completely backwards.
 * Let's go back to the TT championships. Even ignoring the abysmal state of the article, it would be the same as writing now an article for the 2021 World table tennis championships. Which is an event for which there are currently NO Google results (there are 1,000 results for the 2019 ones, which have been awarded, and 4 for the 2020 ones. So while it is quite likely that there will be TT world championships in 2021, and if so it will certainly be a notable event, it still is a WP:CRYSTAL violation to start an article on it now. And meanwhile it isn't a crustal violation to have an article about the 2018 municipal elections in Iceland now.
 * So, do you still maintain that the article should have been deleted as a WP:CRYSTAL violation? And do you still maintain that your prod of Carabao was the right thing to do? Fram (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't deny Carabao is worth keeping now it has been vouched for. And I made the effort to save the Icelandic local elections article after discussion with the author. Despite the fact it was (and technically still is) a NOT violation

Indeed. I don't need to tell you what GNG says, the content of discussion or the repeated discussions on VPP. Kindly either prove your point with something concrete or stop bothering me with your dubious interpretations and incomprehensible double standards. Dysklyver 18:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)  Dysklyver  18:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "I don't deny Carabao is worth keeping now it has been vouched for." Thanks, as long as this is your opinion you are not fit to judge articles and should have you new page patroller right stripped as well. You have not learned anything from that episode. Fram (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * normally I would clarify, but in this instance you will have to. I have two questions: At what point has a <1% error rate become ground's for removal of user right? And how have you gathered the completely erroneous idea that You have not learned anything from that episode. really I would like to know, constructive criticism is useful. But for the avoidance of doubt, your repeated actions against me throughout the project are borderline uncomfortable for me, I hope you are aware that you have on several occasions gone beyond the point of just being helpful, close to outright prosecution without cause.  Dysklyver  08:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If you show again and again that you don't know some of our most basic policies and reviewing rules (e.g. verifiability and notability), then you shouldn't be reviewing new pages. And you haven't learned anything from the Carabao episode if you only see it as worth keeping now it has been vouched for. No, it was worth keeping before you ever encountered the page, it was worth keeping before you nominated it for deletion, and it is still worth keeping. No vouching has changed anything, and your insight should be "oh, right, I should never have nominated that page for deletion and when I next encounter anything similar, I will not claim that it has insufficient claims to notability or that it lacks verifiability, which was both utterly wrong". That my actions about your editing are "borderline uncomfortable" is quite normal, no one likes his problematic editing to be exposed, but since no improvements are noticeable and you seem to lack all self-awareness about this (as witnessed by your self-nom for Arbcom and your answers there), and my misgivings seem to be shared by quite a few people, I don't think you can rightfully claim that my comments are "without cause". Or do you think that e.g. a source like [www.hedgedruid.com/2014/01/cornwall-winter-9-star-alignments-of-lesquite-quoit/ this] has a place on enwiki and should be reinserted in your article? Your edits need close scrutiny, as they have way too many problems, and I see no signs of improvement in general or from your comments. Fram (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you show again and again that you don't know some of our most basic policies and reviewing rules (e.g. verifiability and notability), then you shouldn't be reviewing new pages. And you haven't learned anything from the Carabao episode if you only see it as worth keeping now it has been vouched for. No, it was worth keeping before you ever encountered the page, it was worth keeping before you nominated it for deletion, and it is still worth keeping. No vouching has changed anything - I only see it as worth keeping now it has been vouched for because I still can't verify practically anything in the article to multiple reliable sources, this is my default stance to things which remains unsourced, not necessarily representing an issue.
 * your insight should be "oh, right, I should never have nominated that page for deletion and when I next encounter anything similar, I will not claim that it has insufficient claims to notability or that it lacks verifiability, which was both utterly wrong". - My 'insight', as you put it, is almost exactly this, now when I see an article like this in the end of the NPP queue despite having been created years ago, I leave it to someone else.
 * That my actions about your editing are "borderline uncomfortable" is quite normal, no one likes his problematic editing to be exposed - yes, this is why I am calling it constructive criticism, however you should probably bear in mind that a slightly more positive manner would seem less bitey.
 * but since no improvements are noticeable and you seem to lack all self-awareness about this - naturally the improvements are not noticeable, you can't see an error if I haven’t made it. self-awareness - I am fully aware of the issue.
 * (as witnessed by your self-nom for Arbcom and your answers there) - If you mean my refusal to answer a question where answering would be an admission I am wholly incompetent you can perhaps understand why I am taking this course of action.
 * my misgivings seem to be shared by quite a few people - well they are shared by Primefac, other people have taken your comments or my comments as relevant according to their own views, this is not very relevant.
 * I don't think you can rightfully claim that my comments are "without cause" - not your comments, your actions. If you don't understand what I am saying, then I could literally say everything you just said to me back.
 * Or do you think that e.g. a source like [www.hedgedruid.com/2014/01/cornwall-winter-9-star-alignments-of-lesquite-quoit/ this] has a place on enwiki and should be reinserted in your article? - perhaps you have something against druids? Don't worry about it too much, I daresay someone else will calculate the star alignment of that dolmen at some point.
 * our edits need close scrutiny, as they have way too many problems, and I see no signs of improvement in general or from your comments. - perhaps, and I appreciate people reviewing my contributions, I even have handy links on my talk page for the purpose, but that’s not really the point. Dysklyver  09:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be able to verify anything in the article to multiple reliable sources though, you need multiple reliable sources about the subject in general to indicate notability, and there must exist at least one reliable source for every claim in the article for it to be verifiable. The article had claims to notability, and these (and the notability in general) were verifiable very easily with a simple search in English. But for most facts verification may well need access to and knowledge of Thai-language sources. In such a case, if any claims seem dubious, you tag them with "citation needed" or "dubious" or anything similar, and you remove potentially problematic claims about living people. But you don't tag the article for deletion. I'm glad that you won't do that again, but I don't see how this matches your other claims about notability and verifiability. "If you mean my refusal to answer a question where answering would be an admission I am wholly incompetent you can perhaps understand why I am taking this course of action." No, I don't understand this. If you can't or won't answer a question honestly because it might damage your chances at becoming an ArbCom, then it is just another reason to oppose your candidacy. "No comment" may be smart in court or in custody, but not something we should look for in this case. Please indicate which of my actions are "without cause", as you claim.
 * "perhaps you have something against druids? Don't worry about it too much, I daresay someone else will calculate the star alignment of that dolmen at some point." So you see no problem with that source, only with my removal of it? Fram (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't directly mind you removing the source, but Also removed an unreliable pseudoscience source diff seems like you think druids are "unreliable pseudoscience", or did you mean something else?
 * As far as Carabao (band) is concerned, maybe you could give pointers to what you are seeing that I am not?
 * The article could do with improvements: this is not a reliable source. The next source this says "Here in the country the carabao is as little known as the group of the same name" - indeed. this is about the other activities of the band and gives some good insight. this is an interview. this is their own website. Dysklyver  11:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly don't agree with the description of that source as "unreliable pseudoscience"? As for Carabao, of course the current sourcing is inadequate and could do with improving. This has nothing to do with claims to notability, or with verifiability. The article clearly has such claims, and is verifiable. Claims to notability include things like "very popular in Thailand and other Asian countries.", "Carabao is the most popular Thai rock group of all time. "a major hit", "sold over four million copies", "became a hit in several neighboring countries as well.", "several more hit albums", "Thailand's most popular musical group of all time", the whole scetion "Film, TV series, and other developments"... When you see this, and consider the sourcing inadequate, then you don't nominate the article for deletion without looking for sources yourself; and then you would have found something like the Cambridge University Press "History of Thailand", which considers this band important enough to warrent a short mention which supports the main claims of the article. Now, if a band is important enough to be included in such a book, then it doesn't warrant deletion. It's as simple as that. They are important enough to warrant their own entry (page 82-83) in the "Historical Dictionary of Thailand", again supporting all the important claims to notability. And that's the kind of search you need to do before nominating things for deletion, certainly articles which have survived for so long and have that many claims to notability. You may still miss things, you may nominate things which turn out to be notable after all, but not like this. Fram (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I might be getting the point (finally), you are saying that I can only PROD an article if there is no claim of notability? like the CSD criteria of no claim of significance?
 * Regarding the Druids, although they produce volumes of the weirdest stuff, they are somewhat pre-science era, therefore you can't call them pseudoscience (if you like you could call them a fringe religion, although they would naturally find that offensive). It's also worth noting that when it comes to accurate calculation of the ancient alignment of stars, leylines, and other things they believe in, they are normally very reliable. I will obviously point out that the dolmen itself was a pagan burial site, so modern practitioners of the same faith are therefore a natural source (not that I mind you removing it) which is why I used it in the first place. Dysklyver  13:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wanted to stay off this page, but this is just nonsense. We have no records of the Druids, no evidence that they made anything, and certainly not calculations since we have no artefacts we can be sure they made. They weren't fringe. We have little idea of their beliefs and that only indirectly, and Neo-Druidism correctly states that "the modern Druidic movement has no direct connection to them, despite contrary claims made by some modern Druids." They are not reliable sources for neolithic monuments, which in any case are pre-Druid. Doug Weller  talk 15:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)