Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Yugayuga

Case Filed On: 11:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed On: 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer:Yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: Racism.

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer:Nothing other than this.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Warn him.

Summary:
Regarding a stub type which I've made: I got a message from the user user:Grutness saying that he has nominated the stub type for deletion for various reasons. I may have made a mistake on that issue. However his message containted offensive words targetting a community. I've bolded the text.
 * User talk:Yugayuga

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created several new stub types. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub types, they are already covered by existing stub types, are not named according to stub naming guidelines, and do not reach the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type (in fact, even if every single item in were a stub there would still be fewer stubs that usually required for a new stub type). On top of all that, stub types are almost never created for individual peoples involved in disputes over their national status, for fear of edit warring on templates and categories, which is far far worse for Wikipedia than similar edit wars on articles - and in the case of Sri Lanka's Tamils, their recent history of civil war makes stub types relating directly too them less than ideal. Your new stub types are currently listed for deletion at WP:SFD - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why they should be kept. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SFD

'''So what, you ask, is an SLT when it's at home? It's a Sri Lankan Tamil. There is no need from a size point of view for a split in the SriLanka-X-stub types, and even if there was, splitting by a single people within a country who are involved in an independence struggle fails stub guidelines on very many ways. And even if it didn't, we'd use proper template names, not these...things. And even then, we'd need to know that there were plenty of stubs which these could use. And even then - even if all those unmet conditions were met - we would umperge them into approriate stub categories, not - as in one case - into a permcat (a permcat with only some 45 articles, what's more). Delete.'''
 * SLT hist stub
 * SLT literate stub (yes, that's right - literate)
 * SLT political bio stub

Response from User:Grutness
Well, this comes as something of a surprise to me, considering I simply followed standard practice. Stub types are not created for one side of situations in which there are disputes or have been recent civil wars. The current situation regarding the deletion of TRNC-stub and the icon on Cyprus-stub is a good reason why this is done, as is the long, fraught discussions over the wording of the template of Palestine-stub. I can see nothing racist in any way about my wording, but if I have offended Yugayuga I apologise for that. As to my comments at WP:SFD, they are in no way intended to denigrate anyone's race. Let's take them one sentence at a time:
 * The first sentence is pretty clear, and is almost identical wording to what I have used in the past when a stub type has been incrrectly named with an ambiguous abbreviation. If it had been a stub for South lake Tahoe, I would have written an identical first sentence. or for Solid Logic technology.
 * The first half of the second sentence is a statement of fact. Stub types are not split into smaller types unless there are sufficient stubs to make it worthwhile for editors to have separate stub categories (unlike categories designed for readers,w hich can survive with only one or two articles, it is optimal to have a considerable number of stubs for a stub category to be worthwhile. is not so large as to need splitting. The second half of the sentence is a reiteration of my comment regarding stub types for one side of a conflict.
 * The third sentence was perhaps a little harsh, but was indicating by annoyance that some badly malformed stub templates had been named - "SLT literate stub"? Are we to work out whether stubs are literate or not before we tag them?
 * The fourth sentence indicates a similar thing to the second - there is a set threshold used in stub sorting for the splitting of a new stub type, and there is no indication that these types would have got near to that threshold.
 * The fifth sentence indicates another part of my annoyance at the poor formatting of these stub types. None of the templates fed correctly into a specific dedicated stub category. In one case, it fed into a category that was not even an upmerged stub category - and one which again indicated that there would be too few stubs for the stub type to reach the threshold for a split.
 * The sixth sentence (or sentence fragment) is what I still believe should be done with these worthless, unproposed and ill-formed stub types - they should be deleted.

If you can point out where in that I was being racist, I'll be interested to see it, so that I know not to do it that way next time. I have no ill-will towards the Tamil people, either in Sri Lanka or in India, and do not wish my comments to me misconstrued in any way that would suggest I have. Grutness...wha?  01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW - if you had any problems with what I wrote, why didn't you first try to contact me on my user talk page for an explanation - or at least make some comment at WP:SFD where these stub types are being debated, and as you were invited to do? Going to an advocate before even trying to sort out any misunderstandings was a little bit of using a sledgehammer for a walnut, wasn't it? Grutness...wha?  02:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion:
I found no "Racism" in any of his comments twards you so please drop the case there is nothing done wrong on either side. Cocoaguy 従って 14:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Also i suggest that SLT hist stub SLT literate stub and SLT political bio stub be merged into one SLT stub note. Cocoaguy 従って 14:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from seeing a lack of intended racism, I would recommend you seek help from the Administrator's Notice Board. It is not the role of the Advocates to threaten or warn another member. Jem 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My advice to Grutness is his duty is only limited to the stub issue. He has nothing to explain his private comments about the community on the WP:SFD page. On the other hand he said that there are lot of SLT stub articles because of the civil war!! I doubt whether there is any civil war in the south because most of the articles related to the Sinhalese people are also stubs.

I would consider to drop the case if Grutness explain me what is he trying to say by:

"splitting by a single people within a country who are involved in an independence struggle fails stub guidelines on very many ways. And even if it didn't, we'd use proper template names, not these...things. And even then, we'd need to know that there were plenty of stubs which these could use..." Thanks. Yugayuga 07:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it was pretty clear what I meant, but obviously not. New stub categories are only created if we at WP:WSS know for certain that there are 60 or more stubs that can take a new stub type. This number is reduced in certain cases, such as if there is a specific WikiProject associated with them, but there is still a required threshold. In order for this stub type to be viable, we need to know that there are plenty of stubs which these templates could be used on. In other words, they could only really be considered viable if we knew for a fact that there were 60 articles currently in existence which are taggable with these templates. There is no evidence that this is the case. I made no comment about the community, either on the stub deletion page or elsewhere. I also implied that I thought there were far too few articles for these stub types to be worthwhile - I certainly don't think there are lots of articles, and even if there are, the civil war has nothing whatsoever to do with that. I'm beginning to think that you have completely misunderstood almost everything I wrote about these stub types. Grutness...wha?  01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've desided to wrap up the case as Grutness appologized. However I want to tell him that all Wikipedians have faith in their community and National status, otherwise we won't see such great articles in Wikipedia. Happy editing!

And I thank the involvement of Cocoaguy 従って and Jem. Thankyou!Yugayuga 05:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Your welcome. Cocoaguy 従って contribstalk 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You might wish to close this - but I do not. I still haven't been told exactly how my comments were supposed to be racist. As I said, I apologise if there was something you found offensive, but I would like to know exactly what it was. There is no indication or evidence anywhere that I did say anything of a racist nature, and until I have indication otherwise, I regard what you have written as slander. I would ask that you assume good faith in what other Wikipedians write, and that you remain civil in your comments. To accuse another Wikipedian of long standing of something as serious as racism without giving any indication of why you should consider that is a grave, grave breach of Wikipedia etiquette. I have apologised to you for your misperception of my comments - and I demand that you also apologise to me for your serious slur on my standing within the Wikipedian community. Failure to do so will force me to consider taking this to a higher level. Grutness...wha?  09:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm always ready to appologize but please explain me what were you trying to tell by: "we'd need to know that there were plenty of stubs which these could use...."

Who are those "these" ? From my little English knowledge that kind of word to express a community is nothing other than an insult! I don't know why you are repeating the same words again? "grave, grave", "far,far"....Now finally you are demanding me to appologize! I'm the person who filed this case. Already I have expressed my good will to You. Now you are rejecting that and want a high level investigation. If you want go ahead!

If you are sure that you are innocent then why did you say "As I said, I apologise if there was something you found offensive..". This shows that you are not clear about your self! My idea is you may have omit that part if you feel capable of demanding others! Yugayuga 10:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * these = these templates, as should be patently obvious from he rest of what I wrote. "As I said, I apologise if there was something I said which you found offensive". You have shown no evidence of anything which I wrote which was offensive.This does not indicate any lack of clarity about my own feelings - it simply indicates that an apology is warranted if you can show that I did anything which needs apologising for. So far you have failed to do that.. And yes, you are the one who filed this case. You are the p[erson who came here before an association of Wikipedians and called me a racist with no evidence. Now other Tamil Wikipedians are calling me a racist. You have not indicvated any remorse on your part either here or on my user talk page - you have not expressed any good will to me in either place. Again, I demand that you apologise for your slanderous besmirching of my character before the Wikipedian community. Grutness...wha?  22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I now ask both sides to end this hearing. Cocoaguy 従って contribstalk 14:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I close this on my side - but am taking Yugayuga to RfC. Grutness...wha?  23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I as the only AMA advocate on this case now close this case due to Grutness withdrawal. Cocoaguy 従って contribstalk 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As Grutness has closed his side. I'm also closing my chapter. That doesn't mean that accept his past comments! See you at RfC. Thanks to Cocoaguy 従って . Yugayuga 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that Yugayuga pulled out this case is fully closed. Thank You Both Cocoaguy 従って contribstalk Get Lost 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Cocoaguy 従って 14:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC).