User talk:Mike Christie/Sandbox

RfC/U
I have no experience with this process, but: 1) It would be useful if Hugh Montgomery (historian could also be temporarily userfied, and the Godulf AfD is up today so those links could go away at any time. If I recall correctly, there was a persistent BLP problem on the Montgomery page that a warning was issued about.

2) Ealdgyth's last edit is getting at something that I found myself unable to formulate well, the broader patterns of page creation and editing. This may not be very easy to present in this format, but there is a forest/trees issue in that all of the little things being done wrong are, to a sense, missing the big picture, involving creating new pages as a response to criticism over disputed material in other pages.  Bo Gabriel Montgomery was created to supply support for the notability and reliability of Hugh Montgomery (historian); the Montgomery doll editor (don't remember her name) was created just to make sure Bo Gabriel's genealogical work was notable; the Langfedgetal page was created just to establish a pattern (by quoting his work) of proving that the Montgomery works were reliable, and the Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia page was created to get the evidence on Wikipedia for the material that the Montgomerys used, and thereby prove them reliable. Then the Ancestry of the Kings of Britain page was created to find a home for the data that was being trimmed out of the Mercia page, and Genealogia Lindisfarorum‎ was again created for this purpose (although it was also based on a misunderstanding that it and not the Anglian collection was Stenton's source). Then Godulf was created to show the names in the pedigrees on the other pages were notable, and thereby the whole pedigree was notable. In each case, a page created for one specific POINTY reason was then decorated with whatever turned up on a Google search - in spite of claims to the contrary, this is all coming from Google Books snippets and previews and the simple blocks of text that they show you when you search the whole database for a word. These edits seem to be intended to decorate the articles, make them appear more than they are, and simple sentences that happen to use the words or name are exaggerated, again to amplify apparent notability (the same applies to saying, for example, that Ancestry.com "features" Bo Gabriel Montgomery's genealogy, when they simply have it scanned among tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of other books). The final component of this pattern of editing is the creation of Redirects that only make sense within the context of the the arguments being made over the pages created, such as redirecting Use name to Patronymic (since fixed), Lord of the Frisians to Godulf Geoting (since fixed), or Ancestoritis and Ancestor obsession to Progonoplexia. How, though, do you summarize this pattern in diffs?

3) In the last point added by Ealdgyth, the comments about dating, use of a Wiki-to-print book, and misusing Google Books are all made earlier in some form. I know that the real complaint here is that the editor, in spite of being warned by both Ealdgyth and myself, is harvesting from Google Books without understanding the nature, origin and context of the material being harvested from snippets and text blurbs.  If we could get that point across without what could come across as double-reporting of the same faults, that would be good.

4) I forgot to add a mention of expressing a battlefield mentality - I found a couple of cases where he talks about building ramparts and going into battle, but lost track of them in the process of compiling all the other links. I will dig them back out.  I will also look for more flawed logic, and I think the creation of the entire pages Progonoplexia and Genealogia Lindisfarorum and Godulf Geoting based on misunderstandings of the secondary sources should be particularly highlighted when we talk about the secondary source problem.  I can take care of this this evening. Agricolae (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have quick access to these two books?


What I can see in snippet view isn't inspiring me to think these are related to the family at all... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The second is just repeating a quote by Henry Summers Maine (1875), who was in turn summarizing E. A. Freeman's published Royal Institution lectures of 1873 . "A large proportion of the parishes of England bear names which come directly from old Teutonic patronymics. Uffington, Gillingham, a crowd of others the same name not uncommonly repeating itself in distant parts of the country-point beyond all doubt to the Uffingas, the Gillingas, and so forth, as their original Teutonic settlers (48). These names answer exactly to those borne by the gentes of Athens and Rome, to the Alkmaionidai and the Community of Blood [LECT. Julii, and to those borne by the clans and septs of the Scot both in his own island and in Britain (49). In all these cases the name is strictly a patronymic; the race is called after a supposed forefather. But in none of these cases are we bound to look for actual kindred among all the members of the body (50)."  It is almost certainly referring to this family, but is says nothing about them worth repeating, and again may represent stale scholarship. Agricolae (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, given the titles, I wasn't seeing the direct relevance to the topic. Definitely "Google-mining" for tidbits of information without really looking at whether the information is worth repeating. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I 'walked' back the page on the other, and it is a discussion of how different tribes in history have been reported as being wild men, dog-men, or wolves, focusing on the Vinnili. The author then just throws in several additional tribes that appear to be named after hounds or wolves (Hundingas, Ulfingas, Ylfingar).  They are never discussed further.  Given that it is Ulf- and not Uff- or Wuff-, it is definitely not the same family, probably a continental one. Agricolae (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Godulf Geoting
What a waste of everybody's time. 6 deletes, two redirects (neither with any reason given other than 'so I can shoehorn the information into another article'), yet it is closed as redirect because "redirects are cheap"! Why even have Delete as an option if you are going to ignore a clear consensus for doing so. Then it was done by first deleting and thereby obliterating the history that documented why it needed to be deleted in the first place. Agricolae (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should just have been delete, but I think it's harmless. The problem here is Paul, not the redirect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Diffs
See this guide section for some advice on not being too comprehensive. I know if I were commenting at the RfC/U as an uninvolved editor I'd like the diffs list to be no longer than necessary. I propose to make a pass at shrinking the list a bit, and removing duplication. Since this page isn't the RfC/U page, it's just a sandbox, we can leave the full list here, and use that as a reference if further evidence is requested at the RfC/U.

I was going to start on this this morning, but I'm going to wait to do that until Doug userfies Godulf Geoting, since quite a few of the diffs are from that article or its talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Redraft done, please comment
I've organized the diffs a bit, removed a couple of dups, and dropped the "frivolous links" one as being less important. I also broadened the desired remedy. I think this is close to ready to go. Any further comments before I start it?

I've asked David Fuchs, a current arbitrator, to comment in case there's a faster way to get the final result we're looking for (that is, stopping Paul from making edits that have to be cleaned up by others). I'd like to hear from him before we start in case there's a better way to get there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) The description at the start mentions a battleground mentality. We should perhaps evidence this with diffs. I remember seeing two where he used combat language - I will try to find them again.
 * 2) Regarding the broadening of the scope, I don't doubt that he is doing the same with his ancient edits as he is doing with is more recent ones, but I am not competent to judge. I am a little concerned that by aiming too broadly, we may suffer Icarian consequences for aiming too high.  That being said I am now going to suggest that if it goes this way, we expand it further - ("history and genealogy"), as his interest in history seems to be largely driven by his interest in genealogy and he created Progonoplexia in the mistaken belief that it was a primarily a genealogical term.
 * 3) I would like to get a second case of fault logic, and a second case of primary literature. I have two in mind, so that shouldn't take long. Agricolae (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I added one for point 1) but the other one I can't find - I think it was on the deleted Talk page for Godulf. WIth just one example, I am going to take it back out as it could be dismissed as a trivial occurrence.  For point three, the logic argument I was going to use was his unusual justification for calling anyone in a genealogy legendary, but that too was on the Godulf page, and what I had in mind for the use of primary data he just dances around so much that nobody from outside the discussion will know that is what he is doing.  Regarding point 2, on rereading it I see it is already there - definitely need to get more sleep.  So, I have nothing more to add.


 * The Godulf page has been userfied at User:Dougweller/Godulf_Geoting and the talk page is at User:Dougweller/Talk:Godulf_Geoting -- I gather that the existences of the redirects made it tricky to restore these, which is why they aren't connected to each other. Can you find the faulty logic diff there?  With regard to a battleground mentality, you may be thinking of his edit summary, "building the scholar's rampart".  I'd say it's not necessary to add separate diffs for that, though; the bad faith diffs and accusations provide plenty of evidence in that direction.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was it - that's why I couldn't find it. It is unnecessary.  I put in two logic problems. We could put in more examples of everything, but if the evidence given is insufficient, a few more links won't matter. Agricolae (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you remembered the "legend" one; that one was hard to believe. OK, I'll wait and see if Doug and/or Ealdgyth has anything to add, and I'll see if I hear anything from David Fuchs; if not I'll launch this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything else, honestly. Of course, I'll probably think of fifteen or twenty examples after the RfC closes... but it looks pretty comprehensive without being tldr. It does mention somewhere that these are representative examples, not exhaustive, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, at the top of the evidence section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It needs to follow this pattern
See Requests for comment/Milogardner so it is still missing several sections. I presume Mike is one certifier who tried to help, who is the 2nd? Sorry I haven't been working on it but I've had some real life preoccupations. I will certainly be adding a substantial section endorsing it. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Described outcome
I think we need to change the goals to match the issues. Asking for a topic ban, even voluntary, may not get as much traction as relating his behavior to policies and guidelines. We also need a description section as per Milo Gardner's RfC/U. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll work on the description section next.  I just tried to start an alternative "desired outcome" section, and found it hard going.  For example, what do we say about his selective use of snippets from Google Books?  There's nothing explicit in policy that says don't do that; it's common sense, because using snippets often leads to misinterpretation of the sources.  Paul has used snippets that turn out not to support his position, but if we say "Paul will cease using sources that don't support his position" he's going to say that he thought they did support it, so it's not his fault.  Can we just go down the list of problematic behaviour and ask for him to stop each one?  E.g. "poor logic"?  There are a couple of splendid examples of that in the evidence, but they either indicate complete incompetence or deliberate time-wasting.  Neither one seems likely to be fixed by a voluntary remedy.


 * How about going to Paul's talk page and letting him know about the RfC/U (he probably is already aware of it) and asking what voluntary restrictions he could even consider. If there's no overlap between that and the allowable RfC/U outcomes, perhaps we go straight to an arb case?


 * David Fuchs hasn't replied yet; I may ping Casliber if I don't hear back soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problems in saying he shouldn't be using snippets and that if challenged on a source he has to show that he has read the source, not just a snippet of a book that has no preview. See, and ,


 * And since we are asking or rather should be asking for behavioral changes, I don't think we should be asking which ones he will agree to since 1)I don't think he can follow up, and 2) these are changes he should be making whether or not he agrees to them. I've been following his edits on and off since he began and I've seen little change, if anything he's getting worse.


 * The outcomes should be based on a statement of what policies and guidelines he's not following. - this goes in the description section per the Gardner example, and then outcomes follow from that. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Revised again. Take a look now and let me know what you think.  Ealdgyth, Agricolae, any thoughts? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added two bits to the evidence to allow me to certify also... otherwise, looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I heard back from David Fuchs on my talk page and he recommended we go ahead with the RfC/U. I'm heading to the gym; when I get back, if Doug and Agricolae have indicated agreement, I'll go ahead and get this started. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The sooner the better. Agricolae (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Eating up time
I saw that Mike left a message for Fuchs that Paul's actions were eating up time. You can say that again, of course. It is amazing how much time his un-Afd perseverance has eaten up for you guys and now on this. I think you guys need to be aware of, and perhaps point to the less than well known fact that not only is good editor time not infinite but is getting scarce by the minute. I presented a table for it on Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories and the ratio of editor per pages has dropped 3 fold since 2007 and these fringe items are eating up time like Pac-man. I did not mention Paul there not to single him out but you need to be aware that good editor time is really scarce, if you did not know it already. History2007 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed; and yes, I was aware of the problem. Spending time on unprofitable users is rather like picking up trash on one's street; it's time-consuming work that's required because of someone else's behaviour, but it's to the benefit of the community.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me just say that I am amazed by the reluctance of "the community " to zap thrash generating people, as evidenced by the undue level of effort you guys have to put into this RFCU. The community is too slow and sluggish in getting rid of people to the detriment of content. History2007 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have a faster way to get this done, I agree. I suppose the slow method is to ensure that it's done right.  I would imagine there are fringe editors who would like to try to get some editors thrown off the encyclopedia -- the editors who constantly revert the addition of fringe material.  Perhaps a quicker move to action would risk the wrong outcome.  But it does seem unnecessarily slow as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Next steps
Ok, you will need another certifier besides yourself, someone who has helped resolve the issue. Agricolae, Ealdgyth or maybe Akhilleus but I'm not sure if he's been involved enough. Or me of course, but it may be better if it's someone else and I will be adding an endorsement in any case with details going a long way back.

Then you have to create it and list it, get the 2nd certifier(you can create it with just you but need the 2nd certifier within 48 hours as it says below) then move it live.:

Creation

 * Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation

Listing

 * Once you've created the RFC/U page, list it in the appropriate Candidate Pages section of Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList.
 * Users who are the subject of an RfC should be notified on their talk page. This may be done with the template .
 * Candidate pages need a second user to certify the dispute within 48 hours. Those that don't meet this criterion should be delisted, and marked for speedy deletion with the db-maintenance tag.
 * Once a second user has certified the dispute, it should be moved from the "Candidate pages" section to the "Certified pages" section of Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList.

Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's created and listed: Requests for comment/Paul Bedson. Paul has been notified.  Ealdgyth has indicated she will certify.


 * Once the RfC/U is certified, I propose to drop a talk page message to everyone who commented in the recent AfDs, or has commented here, or who made a substantive edit to one of the deleted articles or talk pages. Are there any relevant rules about notifications for RfC/Us that I should be aware of? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly it must be neutral. I'd suggest including a pointer to the rules at Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules as they are, after all, rules and should help it run better and make it clearer to participants what they can or cannot do. It can be posted at relevant wikiprojects. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, after all this effort please make those messages as brief as possible and just say something simple like "You may wish to comment here" with a link and nothing more. History2007 (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of something along the lines of a section heading of "Notification of user conduct discussion", and a body of "You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first.  You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the the discussion."  How does that sound? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good although I think we might want to also notify Brownhairedgirl. But when she's notified we can just tweak the wording. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FTN notified. Shall I do the Wikiprojects also? Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do. I was going to wait to do the user notifications till Ealdgyth certified, but since she said she was going to do it, I suppose it would be fine to go ahead.  I am off to work and will do it this evening if you don't get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)