Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HanSangYoon/metro referendum

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. In terms of numbers, there are five voices for delete and three for keep, possibly at a different location. More importantly, the delete arguments are better grounded in policies such as WP:OWN and WP:Consensus. The keep votes rely on WP:AGF, but assuming that HanSangYoon wants the best for the encyclopedia does not require us to go along with his plan. The page has been moved out of user space, but its location is not important: the question is whether an RFC on this issue is appropriate, or is merely an attempt to circumvent talk page consensus, and on that question there is no doubt where the consensus in this discussion lies. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:HanSangYoon/metro referendum


[please note: moved to WikiProject Stations/Metro pictures RFC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC). ]

As I interpret this (and I don't see any other way) this is a "referendum" held in userspace, to determine the content of a mainspace article. This in turn is an attempt to bypass the consensus here, where the nominator is in a minority of one as to whether his images are an improvement to the article. This "referendum" is (a) built on a false premise (that the creator has the "right" to have at least one image he's taken in each article, and all that's up for discussion is which one), (b) goes completely against Wikipedia practice in the idea that a userspace discussion can overrule talkpage consensus and (c) violates "anyone can edit" fairly spectacularly by demanding users ask permission of the creator before editing. Since the longer this goes on, the more the probability increases that someone will end up blocked for this, nipping this in the bud by MFDing before it has the chance to get nasty. – iridescent 2  09:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Iridescent hits the nail on the head. Users don't get to start a article content discussion again in their userspace just because they disagree with the consensus at the article's talk page. BencherliteTalk 09:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well feel free to voice these concerns to the Talk Page cause it is a war zone there.Terramorphous (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per iridescent. Stunning ownership of the article(s) being displayed here. Technically, I think WP:USERPAGE allows the user to do this in their userspace, since the goal is improving articles, however since the creator insists that it must be a choice from a pool of only their pictures, and those pictures have already been rejected by consensus, this can only lead to drama. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move. First of all, I have nothing to say about the naming of the page. What I believe is that it's fine to move the page somewhere else, but deleting it is not gonna help at all. I'm not too sure of the page naming policy, but this referendum is critically neccessary. I have created this page for several reasons, all listed in the page (Benefits of this Page Section), and I hope you guys check it. One of the reason was to avoid edit wars and finish their controversy with a group voting. And, the talk page as you could see was a mess. It is not right to suppress my opinion and continue on to get rid of a contribution I have done. That's what was attempted at the talk page. Therefore, if they really want to reject pictures, then the consensus is the only place where I will (and should) accept in a proactive behavior, since these users who I discuss with either ignores the discussion or say something totally unrelated to cut the discussion, causing edit wars that I do not want to handle with. HanSangYoon (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I had already checked the page before saying that it should be deleted, so you don't actually need to ask me to check it. The consensus decision-making process sometimes means having to accept that one's personal view is a minority view and won't win the argument, however much one thinks that the majority is wrong. Continuing to argue once consensus is established against one's own views increasingly becomes regarded as disruptive, and then people start referring to WP:STICK and similar things. That's not a good position to be in. BencherliteTalk 22:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - What I intend for this page was not for me to repeat an argument; I'm certain that if I'm the minority, this vote will also turn against me as well, so I have nothing to say for me being a minority opinion. Right now several users are trying to decide for several different metro page images, and with some people saying for one and another saying for another, the entire stance these people altogether are in is very confusing. To settle this with the entire people, I created a consensus page with a proper format. I request this page to be left alone, or moved at its greatest change. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a technical note: you are using ping incorrectly. To actually produce a notification, you have to create the instance of ping in the same edit as you place your signature, like in the edit I am making right now. You added pings to and myself by inserting the template in a subsequent edit where you had already signed, so neither of us were actually notified. To get that to work you need to delete your existing signature and add a new ~ . Ivanvector (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? Like this? Did I do it correctly? HanSangYoon (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that worked. Since you added the comment twice in two separate edits  you actually pinged me twice. (Removing the template later  doesn't remove the notification) Ivanvector (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per iridescent, and note that I and others have been trying to deal with this user on grounds of WP:DE and WP:CIR, in multiple venues, for over a week. Action is long overdue. Would it help if I said please? See their frivolous ANI complaint and resulting discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing was frivolous about of my accusation of a harassing account. Your biased stance against me is what's really frivolous. You've supported IJBall's campaign against me, and that's what's truly frivolous. What's more, Mandrus's has been trying to sanction me without a proper foundation and cause instability. He's been trying to sanction me for my heated discussions about metro placards, and I don't really see anything negative about that. HanSangYoon (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and Move to a better place. Clearly a Good Faith attempt to get consensus.  WP:CIA applies (as soon as I have written it). Only downside is the use of others' time, whichm to be fair, this MfD also requires.  Indeed I may boldly refactor and move the discussion.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Rich, I think you're misunderstanding what the page under discussion actually is. Nobody would argue with "we are unable to reach agreement on which images should be used in the article so let's hold a vote to see where we stand", but that's not what this is. (That discussion is at Talk:Union Station (Los Angeles), which HSY has been merrily disrupting with spurious sockpuppet allegations and frivolous ANI filings against anyone disagreeing with him.) This is a single user who claims that he has an automatic right to have at least one photo he's taken added to the article, and the only choice in the "referendum" is which of the photographs he's taken will be used—this is WP:OWNership on a massive scale, and completely inappropriate whichever userspace it's moved to. "Competence is acquired/required" isn't the issue here. Don't believe the "it took me ten years to find out that Wikipedia was editable" claim on his userpage—this is not a new user being bullied by the old-timers, it's someone whose first edits were in 2011. – iridescent  15:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of interesting note: There is a userbox near the end of the right side remarking "This user does not like to fight with users at all, but will go to edit war if required. (He's also Korean.)"  Although this is likely an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor, I don't find it humorous when he lives up to its statement.  --Allamericanbear (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you don't know of why I've place this consensus, first of all. The consensus here is not for demanding my picture to go up there. It is for seeing as everyone involved in the controversy of who believe which picture should go up. Remember, this is not parallel in any dimension to ownership, as it is a consensus, not a hear page of if other users wants the picture to stay or not to stay. And with more than 500 pictures that I want others to see and decide for themselves, it is not 'at least one photo' we're talking about here. A referendum like this is what I can think of, the only way everyone could settle quick, easily, and quietly on this issue.


 * Also, for your reference that I've been getting into several disputes because they 'disagree with me', I have explanations to counter with the other users. I have a reason (if not reasons) to explain of why I strongly disagree with their actions, and you're trying to say this as if it is wrong to state it! If a majority comes up to me altogether disagreeing, I still have my reasons. I state it to them, and we see how the logic goes from there; that is the correct way to solute a dispute. See, Wikipedia is of course, a place where majority rules. But it is also a rule to 1) Follow policies, especially policies on editing, and 2) Recognize that righteousness and correctness overcomes majority. If these two rules didn't exist, then what would've Wikipedia become? This encyclopedia is clean and strictly controlled due to everyone going under righteousness and correctness. If I try to defend that and get criticized for it, what does that explain of my position? HanSangYoon (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? More than 500 pictures?  I would like to suggest that you find a more reasonable number of photos to go through, and not overburden the participants with unnecessary photos.  From what I've seen with a few photos (thankfully), not all of them are of postable quality, at least in my eyes.  I refuse to be a part of this, if this is the direction you're expecting people that are supposed to be helping you have to go through.  Reality check.  Editing for Wikipedia was not intended to be a menial job.  --Allamericanbear (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If I have users going against pictures, then what am I supposed to do? I won't just let them go, deleting my pictures without a proper consent. Therefore, I will bring all of what I have done, and show it. Around 6 to 8 pictures for each station, it shouldn't be a hard task to do. What's more, you don't have to look at all stations if you wish, so I do recommend you to participate. HanSangYoon (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lovely, my reply was deleted because of an editing conflict. What I'm asking for you to do, is look at each picture and come up with a valid reason or point of view to the pictures.  Just taking pictures..."ooh, look!  A sign!" or "ooh, look!  a parking lot!" are really not showing me that you have purpose in taking pictures.  A rather rapid go through of the station and taking pictures for the sake of just taking them is not worth the effort of uploading them to the site.  IF you had taken the time to use discretion, you would have known that the lighting wasn't perfect for the pictures and that many of them were not in 100% focus.  I suggest more QUALITY in the photos instead of throwing quantity at us.  --Allamericanbear (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I am not trying to say that quantity outcomes quality. But who decides which pictures have better quality? I have different people saying different things, and remember: I'm asking you all to decide of which picture has better quality! I'll give you the images to shrinken them to the best quality you guys altogether agree, and eventually, when we upload, we could put up the quality pictures (and that brings back the point, your argument is what I actually support). So please, I wouldn't be here inviting people who I do not want to contact anymore to decide on something that takes effort for me. This is to end a conflict in a unified opinion, and I find people who refuse as the ones who refuses to cooperate a peaceful ending to this conflict. HanSangYoon (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) You lost your edits because someone saved their edits first, here's an advice: go back to the page you were editing at, copy your entire comment, forward to the after-conflicted page, and paste it. Simple as that (works on iOS devices) HanSangYoon (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get why you can't look at all those pictures on your own and decide for yourself which are appropriate BEFORE the addition of them to the vote. I can safely assume that you have eyes, and some artistic capability to come up with adequate submissions.  Over 500 pictures are TOO MUCH, though.  It is your responsibility to provide brevity in what you need for an outcome (I know brevity isn't the perfect word, I hope the readers understand what I'm trying to mean). --Allamericanbear (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you haven't got what I said- everyone must decide as a whole and find out which pictures are the better quality. Everyone says different things, and we should altogether vote on this (that means me, too). So yes, that means that I have eyes, that means I have artistic skills (I'm qualifying for professional artistry and music; what does that explain to you?) I'm trying to be fair here. What if I pick out my opinions and nobody agrees? That's what happened with the platform view images. HanSangYoon (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the chance you take. I can't understand you having people looking at pictures that YOU may not like.  Show your best.  I'd expect no less from anyone.  I wouldn't put photography of mine up that I can't back 100%.  --Allamericanbear (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to the appropriate namespace. I, who am assuming good faith, think that the user truly wants to hold a "referendum" (a !vote as we call it). It can be held as a RFC in the article talk namespace (for example, Talk:Union Station (Los Angeles)). However, the user namespace is not the right venue to do this. Epic Genius (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If this happens the page will also have to be rewritten; it's current form and content is far from ideal. ColonialGrid (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with ColonialGrid; there is nothing that is 'far from ideal' in the page? If you see something that should change, tell me so that I could consider fixing it. HanSangYoon (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For one thing, instead of all these sections, there will only be two or three sections in an RfC: a main question, a discussion section, and maybe an evidence section. Epic Genius (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For one thing, please remove my name from the thing, as I am trying to maintain a voluntary IBAN with this editor, and this isn't helping... --IJBall (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, I've removed your name IJBall. ColonialGrid (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is just another symptom of this editor (who refuses to work in a collaborative manner) trying to bypass the consensus that was reached at Talk:Union Station (Los Angeles). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * David, there was no attempted consensus anywhere outside of this page. The Union Station is a simple war zone, and nothing was settled there. I already stated above of why I made this page, and why I discontinued with the futile thread on Union. If I was doing this for denial, then why would've I invite EVERYONE involved in this? Did I invite only people who supported me? No. I'm doing this as an organized way to decided which pictures qualify, and which one doesn't. and to avoid edit wars or discussion wars, I made this page as a peaceful way to let all of us decide. It's fair and square. HanSangYoon (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hate to burst your bubble HSY but there was already is consensus. Which is a wide angle platform shot instead of a station name plate. I'd say about 10 editors are on board with the current consensus.Terramorphous (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know what consensus you're talking about; the one in Union Station wasn't a consensus. I can't find it anywhere, in fact. If you're talking about a private consensus that I was unaware of, then it still means I wasn't in it. HanSangYoon (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.