Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/NuclearWarfare

Matrena balk / Matrena Balk
All people mentioned here have been notified. As of 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC), I have removed the names of the people mentioned. You can find out who they actually were via the edit histories of the page if you so wish. NW ( Talk ) I know I'm posting this well before the seven day period, but this has gone through such a whirlwind that I feel obligated to post this. Note that every time I posted this, the article clearly asserted notability. Article was tagged as A7 by Editor 1 within a minute of being posted, and the account was welcomed with the standard Twinkle Welcome + Speedy warning, which would have completely overwhelmed me as a new user. I improved the article somewhat, as this was the only revision of the article that asserted notability only weakly, to a point where it did. I also added {{hangon to the bottom of the article, as I have seen new users try to add the tag and fail. I left a message on the talk page, saying I had more to write about, but that was ignored. Sysop 1 came by and deleted the article as A7 and the talk page as G8. I asked him on his talk page why he deleted my article, and he used admin rollback to revert my comment. He did not leave a followup message on my talk page.

I recreated the article with the same content that was deleted, minus the templates. Sysop 1 tagged it for deletion as A7 (giving me another Twinkle warning), and it was deleted by Sysop 2. I made minor alterations to the article and reposted it, whereupon it was tagged for speedy deletion by Sysop 1 as A7. Editor 2 gave a warning to not create autobiographies, even though the subject of the article was alive during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The following (rather harsh, I thought) message was then left by Sysop 1: "I wonder if, after two deletions, the possibilty might have ocurred to you of providing some references . If this woman is notable, there will be articles about her on the web. Have you thought of providing external links to those articles? Also have you considered the possibility that dates of birth and death might be appropriate in a bio article? Ignore the ridiculous message below - I shall tell the Eagle...Why do you persist on having a lower case b on balk? Was it too difficult for you to create the article at Matrena Balk?" The article was then deleted by Sysop 3. I recreated 20 hours later as Matrena Balk, with a badly formatted source, but quite reliable source. The article was redirected without comment by Editor 1, and I would have had no idea how to fix that if I was a newbie. I undid his edit with an edit summary. Sysop 1 then prodded the article with a rationale "no evidence of notability". I removed the prod, and was reverted using rollback by Editor 1. Editor 1 then redirected the article to Peter I of Russia with the edit summary "This person is not notable other than shagging Peter I. Not worthy of an article". And that is where I decided to end my trial. NW ( Talk ) 14:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At first glance, this looks like a really bad experience. Before I say anything else, I would just like to urge everyone participating to make sure to remain civil, and to not intentionally provoke, or "bait", other editors, lest the entire project be brought into disrepute. I am not saying this happened here, this is something I've been thinking about for a while. The intent of this project is not to entrap new page patrollers. decltype (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC) At least, that's not why I signed up
 * Firstly, the articles being discussed were written by user {{user3|Matrena balk}} who is clearly a newbie. The main message above was written by {{user3|NuclearWarfare}} who is an experienced editor. But NuclearWarfare writes in the first person! Please explain!


 * Despite all our messages, the text was scarcely changed between the first version and last version:
 * the basic matter of dates of birth and death had not been attended to
 * no mention of the alternative spelling Matryona
 * no mention of her brother Willem Mons or her daughter Natalia Lopukhina, who both have articles
 * there are a number of interesting articles about her on the web but no attempt was made to link to them.


 * In short, a really slovenly piece of editing. Yes, my message could be called harsh but it was in response to the third attempt to post the article. What are we to do with someone who cannot even manage to add a date? I think our response was appropriately escalated. &mdash; RHaworth {{toolbar|separator=dot|talk | contribs }} 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was correctly tagged and deleted multiple times under A7 as it did not credibly assert the importance of the subject. Simply being the mistress of someone notable does not automatically confer notability, as notability is not inherited (also, one reference is not enough to establish notability). I never personally saw a hangon template on the page. I agree with User:RHaworth that this "article" was not changed noticeably between our many messages on the article creators talk page and their repeated recreations. Simply recreating something that has been deleted, which does not satisfy the issues clearly spelled out in the "standard twinkle speedy notice", is easily interpreted as disruption. On my very first day here, I was still able to READ notices on my talk page, act on them or at least ask someone for help when I was unsure what they meant. My frustration is palpable. Those of us who patrol newpages do a thankless, yet important job. Do you know how much garbage, outright vandalism/hoaxes and nonsense would currently exist in Wikipedia if nobody partolled newpages? At any given time, I can pop in and find that up to 80% of new articles being created are blatant hoaxes, patent nonsense, attacks, pure vandalism, or are incomprehensible or don't contain enough context to understand what the subject of the article is. Yet we are regularly brought to task for tagging articles that do not satisfy the criteria for speedy and/or being "rude" because "newbies are incapable of understanding the twinkle speedy notices". I would also like to know, as does RHaworth above, why NuclearWarfare is writing above in the first person when the article was, in fact, created by an account named User:Matrena balk. I do not recall seeing NuclearWarfare in the edit history for this now-deleted article! &lt;&gt;Multi&#39;‑&#39;Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Now I see that the Matrena balk account has a userpage that specifies it is an alternate account of NuclearWarfare. What the hell is this but deliberate baiting and a blatant violation of WP:POINT??? &lt;&gt;Multi&#39;‑&#39;Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the purpose of the project is not to bait or make a POINT, and it is not what happened here. The purpose of the project is briefly summarized in the latest Signpost. decltype (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Question If an admin or experienced editor wants to see what editing Wikipedia is like for new editors how can they do so? Is the creation of an alternate account to explore this issue legitimate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How can an action be POINTy if it's completely neutral and the proving of the point is entirely at the discretion of a third party (i.e. incorrect tagging and deletion)? I can understand that you are frustrated that your mistakes are displayed on a prominent page for everyone to see but participating in this project is neither POINTy nor baiting. I doubt ArbCom would have allowed all those accounts otherwise. Regards  So Why  18:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I was deliberately baited and entrapped by an unannounced role/sock account and you're chastizing me? If this is what the project has come to, deliberate baiting, entrapment assumptions of bad faith and then public floggings then I think Wikipedia is not for me. Also, the behavior is not neutral. It's deliberate and meant to prove a point by goading people acting in good faith. &lt;&gt;Multi&#39;‑&#39;Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think implying that NW acted deliberately to bait and entrap you is assuming bad faith of his actions - not to say completely unlikely since he could not have known who will patrol said article? The project was created to allow experienced users to experience how new users are treated. It makes absolutely no difference whether the creator of said article was actually an admin (like NW) or a new user - the tagging was not correct, regardless of the creating user, so yes, we can "chastise" you for that. You have admitted yourself above that you used notability as a standard which A7 explicitly does not. If you allow me to give you a bit of advice, I'd suggest you ignore the identity of the user who created the article and simply focus on what happened and maybe what you can learn from it. Regards  So Why  19:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about this specific person, it's about anyone who would do this. The "data" here was obtained via false pretense and I reject it. As I noted at AN/I, if this had been a real newbie and someone had stated on my talk page that I was being too bitey, then I would have been much more likely to take that to heart. Instead, I was tricked and then brought to a public flogging here where everyone is saying I need to "learn a lesson". My anger has nothing to do with my ego and everything to do with the manner in which this started. Trickery, subterfuge and using sock puppets to troll otherwise constructive editors, WHOMEVER they may be, to elicit an expected behavior, is not helpful. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I must note that A7 is not about notability - whilst notability is not inherited, a claim of being related to a notable person, if credible, is an indication of importance sufficient to pass A7. Actual sourcing and notability should be dealt with at PROD or preferably AfD. Tim Song (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read RHaworth's note above. The tag was correct. &lt;&gt;Multi&#39;‑&#39;Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. A7 is not about notability and the article claimed sufficient importance or significance to fail speedy deletion. The fact that it was incorrectly deleted is irrelevant for assessing the correctness of the tagging. Regards  So Why  19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It clearly failed to indicate why its subject is important or significant.  A7 seems correct in all the versions I've seen, including the deleted versions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin says it better than I could myself. I was speaking of "notability" in the context of importance. I know what A7 means, I just picked the wrong word. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a bad example at all. Five secs on Gbooks reveals almost 100 hits.  And a source was provided, not using fancy citation templates, but it was there. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the question. Even if the reference were fully cited, there was no claim of importance or significance.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh, are we getting in a deletion debate now? The central point is the bitey nature of Multixfer and wikipedia as a whole. We all know that if someone wants something deleted, they can come up with some policy which supports the deletion. Dismissing 100 google book hits as no "claim of importance or significance" is flawed on so many levels.  Ikip (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even the original versions of the article mentioned several key historical figures that this person was associated with- Peter I of Russia, Anna Mons, and Catherine I of Russia. This isn't some twelve year old MySpacer, but a historic figure. The correct course of action was not to say "well, maybe this fits A7" and try to justify tagging it, but to take a quick look around to see if there are additional sources. As Power.corrupts notes below, Google Books has nearly 100 hits that can be accessed easily. Even if this might fail WP:NOTINHERITED, that is meaningless at this stage. NW ( Talk ) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If an A7 is in doubt, AfD or PROD it. Potential overrides deletion. Also, your claim that NW is not a newbie and therefore you haven't bitten one. I'm inclined to agree; you haven't bitten a newbie yet. However, you've shown your propensity to do so, which is why you should take this to heart anyway. Finally, with regards to "{{xt|Trickery, subterfuge and using sock puppets to troll otherwise constructive editors, WHOMEVER they may be, to elicit an expected behavior, is not helpful.}}", is it not true that teachers will frequently "trick" students to teach them? Aren't tests and quizzes made difficult to teach? Such behavior, showing you where your weaknesses lie, may be painful, but it is decidedly helpful if you are willing to change and improve yourself. I, for one, welcome such behavior. Had I fallen victim to NEWT, I would reflect on my own mistakes instead of flaming anybody and everybody who I feel is "trolling" me. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  {{sub| talk  //  contribs }} 00:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughtful comments. However, I do not believe the NEWT project is a net positive one, however fun and interesting it may be: this simply is not the way to go about educating anyone. We're all volunteers here, we're all flawed, and we all know this. The proper course of action in my mind would be for a notice or even a warning to be placed on my talk page asking that I not be bitey, or otherwise instruct me as to why A7 or a redirect were not proper (this is what was done in the past and I improved quite a bit because of it). My solution to this episode is that I'm not going to patrol newpages anymore and won't tag CSD anymore. What I've learned here is that it's not worth the effort. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As one of the accused who actually carried out one of the deletes, I must plead guilty of violating the technicalities. However, I must also state that in the 18 month since my first contribution, nothing has steamed me so much as becoming ensnared in the traps deliberately baited to catch the imperfect.  To prevent further transgressions, I believe my best course of action may be to simply to avoid monitoring CSD, now that I know that the field has been mined.  I agree with Multixfer – this project is not a net positive.  (I had lots more to say, but decided that my rants would be a waste of time - both mine and yours.) --  Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Dick Pountain's of PC PRO and New York Review of Books US novelist Nicholson Baker experience captures the frustration that many new users feel:
 * "[Baker] explains how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation...but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself. [Political Quarterly is] a venerable UK magazine for which I write occasional book reviews...The Political Quarterly was just a stub, so I tried to add a proper entry for the magazine."


 * "I wrote a roughly 100-word potted history of this 75-year-old periodical, mentioning that early contributors included Leon Trotsky and Benito Mussolini. Sure enough, within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content, is only about my friends (some friends!), lacks citations or corroboration and has been put up for "express deletion"."


 * "I was permitted an appeal, but it was disposed of in about two minutes and then the piece was gone...So Baker's concerns would appear to be merited...It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire..."
 * I warmly welcome this projects and members soul searching. Anything to stop the nasty way new editors are regularly treated. Ikip (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * New editors are not regularly treated nastily; a few examples is not representative of the thousands of new articles processed every day. In some cases, I've gone out of my way to help people improve articles so that they may be kept and I know others do so as well.
 * The other way of looking at this is that we'll end up with a great pile of horrible, POV pushing, marketing copy and other garbage. My recommendation is that if people want to shoot for quantity versus quality, then rewrite the CSD policy so that only pure vandalism, blatant hoaxes and attack pages can be deleted. I assure you we'll end up with more than our fair share of unreferenced, unwikified articles about myspace bands, fringe publications, and questionable facts in general. I see this project as a reactionary response to a non-issue. Everyone and their cousin who has ever written something on Wikipedia and had it deleted has complained about it afterwards. I thank god I don't bother with cleanup except in articles I actually write or take a specific interest in. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in the supporting evidence that "New editors are not regularly treated nastily" In support of my view that they are, I have this study to back it up, and the observations of several journalists. [Would you be interested to read many more?]
 * I am concerned that so many editors regularly call editors contributions "garbage". Is Matrena Balk garbage?
 * Ikip (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is still a core policy. This study and the experience of a few possibly-biased journalists (who may or may not simply be deliberately hunting for something scandalous to write about) do not represent scientific research and assume bad faith or at least willful negligence. Newpage patrollers do not act in bad faith nor are they willfully negligent and the suggestion that they do or are is offensive. As several people have now said, data that represents the reality of the situation could be obtained by watching newpages in realtime and/or reviewing logs. Saying "that's too hard" elicits little sympathy from me: few things worth doing are ever easy. I would be more inclined to believe your claims if people were running a proper study instead of a few experienced editors creating socks and using them to set traps.
 * I don't recall anyone ever calling Matrena balk "garbage", so your over-simple rhetorical device seems to lack a few gears. It's a shame you are so concerned. Spend two weeks patrolling newpages, walk a mile in my shoes and and then maybe you'll comprehend the reality of the new-article situation. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit ironic that your complaint would be that you were caught in a trap designed to ensnare the imperfect. It seems like the readiness with which we speedy delete new articles is itself a trap designed to ensnare the imperfect.  I don't mean this to be a personal attack - I think that perhaps we do too much to encourage admins to delete first and ask questions later.Rich0 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Those journalists and the editors of this study, "assume bad faith or at least willful negligence"? Whereas those who are CSDers protect Wikipedia from the "great pile of horrible, POV pushing, marketing copy and other garbage"?

All CSDers want is respect and recognition for the hard work you do, people just don't realize how bad the new-article situation is?

When you hear someone say "elicits little sympathy from me" does this evoke a negative or positive response?

Yes, CSDers are very, very important. Yes, you are correct, I apologize, no one ever said Matrena balk was garbage. While shoveling the "garbage" Matrena balk was in that "great pile". So there was either (a) a mistake, (b) Matrena balk is garbage, or (c) something in between. No one is questioning your dedication to Wikipedia, we respect the work you do. I think people are only trying to make sure only the garbage gets thrown out, not potentially notable articles too. As an experienced CSDer that is why we need your help in suggesting solutions.

"I would be more inclined to believe your claims if people were running a proper study" well, why don't we set one up then. If "that's too hard" I would be happy to help. But keep in mind if you are interested in helping create this study, that unfortunately, there seems to be a group of editors, that no matter how much evidence is provided, their stance will never change. Ikip (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)