Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-15 Bubbles (Trailer Park Boys character)

What's going on?
has been repeatedly blanking and redirecting this article, while ignoring attempts to have him clarify his reasons on the talk page for this article, Julian (Trailer Park Boys character), and his talk page. He claims in the history that he's doing this according to an AFD, but I have been unable to find any such AFD, and he has refused to provide it. He points out 3RR, but due to his uncooperative nature, his edits are no longer being viewed in good faith, and are being treated as vandalism.

What would you like to change about that?
Attempting to have this issue resolved in a proper manner, such that both parties can agree on how to handle this article.

Mediator notes
Hello, I'm Synergy. I'll be taking a look at the case, as there might be a change in who mediates it. I'll be more than willing to help mediate any issues. At first glance, it appears that this case has been stalled. More information as time permits.  Syn  ergy 12:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Can this be closed? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bubbles_(Trailer_Park_Boys_character)&action=history

per the above, in the course of making his edits, Eusebeus claims that his edits are according to the AfD (there isn't one), makes accusations of sock puppetry (being not logged in doesn't constitute being a sock puppet), claims there's a consensus (which there isn't), and states that it needs to be discussed on the talk page and that a centralized discussion needs to be started. Before his disruptive edits, centralized discussion was attempted on his talk page, on the article talk page, there's nothing in the talk page he keeps redirecting the article to, and he hasn't replied to anything. Kinsloft (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Decision was to rd the characters to the LOC unless independent notability could be established with independent 3rd party sources. Articles for deletion/Randy (Trailer Park Boys character). Also, accusations of vandalism are reprehensible and vile. Eusebeus (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is clearly not mentioned in that particular link. You can't take a discussion on a minor character for a show and apply it to main characters of the same show without continued discussion. Since that's entirely not how Wikipedia works, and since what you're doing is clearly defined as disruptive according to Vandalism as page blanking, describing your actions as vandalism are clearly not reprehensible or vile. Kinsloft (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kinsloft, you shouldn't describe Eusebeus's actions as vandalism - they weren't a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, making disruptive edits that leave incomplete sentences and removing sources that are in use in other places in an article? Tossing as many tags as he can think of on an article, when most of them do not apply? That's not constructive in the least. Kinsloft (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Question How does a user with less than 50 edits prior to this intervention know enough to proceed to directly to mediation in the event of a content dispute as well as find the Chutzpah to declare WP:BRD inapplicable based on its being an essay? Not that this is incorrect, but perhaps Kinsloft cares to clarify? That seems a suspiciously quick study. Are you a declared sock? Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer Just because I tend to not get involved in things, or tend to log in, doesn't mean I don't pay attention to what goes on about Wikipedia. I don't know how often you actually read the things you tell people to read, but WP:BRD clearly states at the top of it that it's not a policy, and most essays tend to state "You may heed it or not, at your discretion." It doesn't take much chutzpah to tell when someone is trying to state their position as being correct and factual when they're referring to what is clearly an opinion. You can attempt to label me as a sock on the basis that I don't log into my account, but I'm not the one attempting to bandy about a personal agenda, and using false consensus to do so. Kinsloft (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am still suspicious. Your casuistical response about WP:BRD (and see the related process discussion at WP:CON) is unconvincing. WP:PPP is also an essay; like WP:BRD, it is widely respected. If you canvassed Wikipedia editors, 90% + will tell you that following BRD is a very good idea. Bandying about false accusations of vandalism, on the other hand, is not. I am quite confident, in fact, that something along these lines may be explained to you here at mediation. But this is also informal, so are you going to ignore that as well? It may also be explained to you that WP:NOT extends beyond a "personal agenda".

Now, are you certain you don't edit under another user name? As long as you are honest about it, then having an alternate account presents no problem. But you need to come clean. Eusebeus (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly certain I don't edit under any other usernames. I don't have a need to attach a user account to what I do in most cases.


 * WP:NOT references WP:WAF, which I feel I was able to clearly follow in the first Bubbles rewrite, as I did make reference to the fact that it was fictional, and took place in episodes or seasons of the series, rather than writing entirely in-universe. Major characters for popular television shows tend to have breakout articles, and from what I saw while getting references for the article, while Trailer Park Boys may be unknown outside of Canada, I feel the references I found while redoing the article certainly establish enough notability to warrant an article. As for having a low opinion of the many, many essays on Wikipedia, there's practically an essay to support any given side of anything, and I don't feel like having to read a billion opinions on how people want Wikipedia to function.


 * In short, my particular view is WP:IAR until consensus says otherwise, and the references I've found for the articles in question establish notability as required in WP:N and suggested be required in the essay WP:FICT. You can have as much respect for essays as you want, but it's not required. Kinsloft (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You have not established independent, out-of-universe notability for any of the characters in question; faced with a return to the redirect, you tossed around wanton accusations of vandalism; your behaviour is sock-like, and you are scoffing at a well-respected procedure laid out at BRD which is itself a reflexion of WP:CON. These should and will be reverted to redirects since you have not managed to adduce material that cannot be adequately covered at the LOC; there is no compelling reason for them to exist on their own. You know enough to cite WP:IAR in the face of not being able to satisfy our policy criteria, yet you claim to be a neophyte editor. You are a fast learner when it comes to wikilawyering. Instead of wasting your time responding here, why don't you go find substantial, reliable, independent sources that demonstrate clear out-of-universe notability which extends beyond the confines of the fictional setting of TPB. That would settle your case once and for all. Eusebeus (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's take this discussion back to the article's talkpage, please. A fresh start without any mutual animus would also help. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 01:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Kinsloft (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)