Wikipedia:Editor review/Alan Liefting

Alan Liefting
I stumbled across the Editor review process by chance. I may have had an inkling of its existence but made myself busy as an exopedian! I have been on WP for over six years (exactly  in fact) so it is high time my performance was evaluated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I predominately carry out categorisation. This includes corrections, and the creation of new categories to accommodate the increasing size of WP. My latest categorisation edits in the Category namespace only can we viewed on my . I quite like creating new pages but this is quite time consuming and we all have a finite amount of time to dedicate to WP. I also split articles into sibling articles as a way of improving the content of WP. This pleases me since I take pleasure in improving WP for the reader.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * ''Disputes are inevitable since not every edit is guided by policy,and policy is not set in stone. Some of my disputes are at:
 * Talk:Brian Tamaki
 * Articles for deletion/List of environmental organisations topics (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Environmental issues with energy.
 * I think most of the disputes I have had are better characterised as disagreements on judgement calls. Other users have caused me stress on the odd occasion but I now deal with it by keeping an unemotive tone to my responses.
 * I think most of the disputes I have had are better characterised as disagreements on judgement calls. Other users have caused me stress on the odd occasion but I now deal with it by keeping an unemotive tone to my responses.

 Reviews 


 * I mainly wanted to thank Alan for the much more informative user page he has now, and especially for the "Declaration of confict of interest" statement made there. Some of us knew this anyway, but it is good to see this out in the open.


 * My only suggestion is that Alan may wish to consider bringing some of his favourite articles up to GA standard. It is always good to see experienced editors contributing recognised content, even though this can be a time consuming task. Johnfos (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that removing a category from a page requires an explanation, e.g., Wikipedia policy is to not add categories to user pages.


 * I would suggest that when editing pages for policy violations, the change made should be the smallest needed to bring it into compliance, e.g., instead of removing from a user page, add a colon to make it Category:foo . Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No more book burnings okay?:) Marcus   Qwertyus   20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Alan. I have noticed that you have nominated a lot of articles about books at AfD.  I also note that the AfD page starts with the following language:
 * "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
 * For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately."
 * WP:BK lists several criteria for notability for an article about a book. Among them (and probably most common) is that the book has received significant coverage such as reviews in several independent, reliable publications.  My experience is that, often, I can find several reviews of books you've nominated in a minute or two of searching through Google.  My request to you, then, is to avoid nominating articles about books for AfD unless you have checked for reviews and verified that they are lacking, and that the book is truly non-notable. We should consider deletion when the appropriate references are altogether lacking, not when they are lacking in the current version of an article.  The article should be expanded with better references rather than deleted when that is a practical option.  I will support your AfD nominations when your sincere search shows that the article "requires deletion", but will oppose your nominations when the article is about a notable book and simply needs improvement.  Thank you for asking for an editor review and considering my observations. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is helpful to explain why something is "unjustified" in XfD rationales, so everyone involved better understands your view and so your opinion is given more weight in the closing. — Bility (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion by the backdoor

Alan Liefting has been blanking some articles by replacing the content by redirect. This has the effect of deleting an article without going through the usual process. He argues that what he has done can easily be undone but I say this is disingenuous at best. The readers of the encyclopedia, including any editors not involved with the article in question, would have no reason to suspect that the redirection had blanked an entire article. Even if an editor came to the subject of the article anew, with additional material that may sway even a deletionist's heart as to the value of the article, he would have have to be a regular Hercules Poirot to suspect that the redirect hid what his new material might make a good article, if it were not already good enough when blanked by Liefting: Who is to say? No discussion is entered into by him. Slam dunk, gone.

He alleges his actions have popular approval on the basis that the complaints are few. No, absence of complaint does not imply approval. There may be no groundswell popular outcry but I believe many regular experienced editors of WP would object if they had a look at what he has been doing. By blanking articles without entering into proper discussion or using the proper mechanisms review of his actions is not prompted.

Blanking by replacing an article with a redirect has the same effect as a speedy delete. The only difference is that such improper actions can more easily be undone but only if detected. People watch for improper speedy deletes. There is no easy tool to monitor blanking by replacing an entire article with a redirect. As if under the cover of darkness pages are being torn out of this encyclopedia by Alan Liefting.

A way Liefting could demonstrate good faith when blanking one article and re-directing it to another would be by merging the content of the two articles. But he makes no attempt to do that in the examples I have found. Any good content just gets lost.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The merging of the content of a redirected page with the target is not always necessary and in some cases should not be done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In some cases. Perhaps you could indicate those cases where you have performed a merge before blanking the article by overwriting it with a re-direct? I could not find any. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am now aware that there are likely scores and scores of articles scores of redirections by Alan Liefting where either merger or deletion should have been requested. I only went back a few weeks and I found ten. I have reverted to the version just before the redirect, and explained why in the edit summary and/or the Talk page of the articles in question. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I will reiterate that a redirect is in no way comparable to a speedy deletion. With regards to the redirects that I have set up I can only find two in article namespace over the past five weeks:
 * - an unreferenced article that cannot easily be merged with the Barry Crump article.


 * That is why the article should not have been blanked! There was no need for a re-direct here! You just tore the page from the encyclopedia without debate. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - a bio about a person of questionable notability


 * Possibly this person is non-notable (although I perhaps disagree), but that is immaterial. The point is that you have appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner. You decide the article needs to be deleted. Then you blank it. No debate. There is a procedure for removing non-notable pages from the encyclopedia. That needs to be followed. Pending the outcome of the normal process there is no need to blank the page with a re-direct. Indeed, this is NOT desirable as it has the effect of not making it obvious the content *you* dislike exists, thus denying the opportunity to improve the article pending a deletion decision - this opportunity is given as part of the standard procedure. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you give details of the others? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been sifting through your change log. To give you the list I would have to do that again and that is a tiresome process. I have done numerous changes to revert the damage you have done. They are in my change log. Please feel free to have a look. Please just follow the procedures laid down for deleting questionable / non-notable content. Do not do this by the backdoor by blanking the article. Thanks, Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

---