Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality 2

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Neutrality | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
Complainants find Neutrality's use of Votes for deletion somewhat excessive and have tried and failed to have a discussion with him about their concerns.

Description
Neutrality has made a rather large number of listings on Votes for deletion in recent days (among which, he made about thirty article listings in twelve hours), and his only response to a reasonable request that he slow down was to list some more articles on VfD and blank the request from his user talk page without responding.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * Lists 10 schools 15 May
 * Lists 9 schools 16 May
 * List 24 schools 17 May (1) 04:15-05-16 then another 5 17 May (2) 13:47
 * Lists 8 more, ignoring suggestions made in dispute resolution attempt (see "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" below) 17 May (3) 21:39

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Dispute resolution. First resort: talk to the other parties involved. The disputants present strong evidence that Neutrality deliberately and knowingly rebuffed and ignored three separate polite, good faith attempts to resolve a problem over some 50-60 VfD listings made in the course of three days.
 * We don't contend that the large number of VfD listings was a breach of policy, but we think it was probably beyond what could be considered reasonable use of VfD. We would have liked to discuss this with Neutrality.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * User talk:Neutrality: User:BaronLarf tries to get Neutrality to work on a compromise on school articles. 17 May 05:08
 * User talk:Neutrality: User:Tony Sidaway politely suggests that "it isn't unreasonable to find nearly thirty nominations by one editor in the space of twelve hours somewhat excessive" and asks him to "seriously consider limiting your listings to ten or less in any twenty-four-hour period." 17 May 15:24
 * User talk:Neutrality: User:Evilphoenix politely adds "I agree. I would sincerely appreciate if you would limit the quantity of school related nominations you would make to VfD. Best regards" 17 May 15:24
 * User talk:Neutrality: User:Unfocused adds: "Please! I would also like to see a resolution of this...." "...I know that in the past, other people have been angered to the point where they did something that resulted in a ban. Let's cut this off before something ugly like that happens again." 13:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)--Unfocused 15:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * User talk:Neutrality: Prunes user talk page removing entries he doesn't intend to archive--User:Tony Sidaway's, User:Evilphoenix's, User:BaronLarf's and User:Unfocused's edits included, without archiving them or responding to anyone. 17 May 00:14
 * There has been no response by Neutrality to Tony Sidaway, to Evilphoenix, to BaronLarf or to Unfocused.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * BaronLarf 03:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * EvilPhoenix 05:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfocused 15:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 03:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I note that this RfC is about Neutrality's response to attempts at discussion, and not about the actions themselves that lead to this attempted discussion. Kappa 08:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC) (''While I endorse this summary, I have added my own view below Kappa 13:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC))
 * Neutrality is being disruptive and he knows it. Anyone who watchs VfD knows that deleting schools will fail because of a lack of concensus, mass nominating 30+ schools just wastes everyone's time. Klonimus 19:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I knew there would be problems with his becoming an admin since there were problems with him before he became one! Dwain 23:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Mass disruption is counter-productive and non-beneficial to Wikipedia. Bahn Mi 18:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * – ugen64 06:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Netoholic @ 21:03, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed.


 * This entire request for comment is invalid.
 * First, the requests for comment instructions state that RfCs are used for "specific users who have allegedly violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines." The complainants themselves admit that "we don't contend that the large number of VfD listings was a breach of policy."
 * Second, I wasn't informed of the existence of this page until I luckily saw it while patrolling Recent Changes; making entire pages designed to impugn one's character in the eyes of the community necessitates that the person in question be informed and given the chance to defend their actions. I see that the creators of this request have elected not to do so, and for that I am greatly disappointed. I do note, however, that the creators of this RfC apparently took the time to carefully document it at Watch/schoolwatch in a transparent effort to steer large numbers of users to certify the RfC without getting a response from me first.
 * As for the issues raised:
 * Regarding the charge that I have "[i]gnored dispute resolution": I am an Arbitrator, so I pride myself on knowing a fair bit about proper dispute resolution practices. One of the first things I know is that there cannot be dispute resolution without a actual, tangible dispute. In other words, this RfC, unlike virtually every other, involves no reverting, no personal attacks, and as far as I can tell, no breach of policy. The only "dispute" here is a disagreement: the authors of this RfC happen to disagree with my stance.
 * Many other Wikipedians&mdash;long-time, respected users, administrators, and Arbitrators&mdash;have voted delete on many if not all of my nominations. If my VfDs were truly unilaterial disruptions, as the authors of this RfC seem to imply, others would not have supported them.
 * Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous remark that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts" is applicable here. I can only advise the complainants that I am not obligated to respond to threats or insinuations, nor to "polite" but unreasonable requests. Their personal finding of my listing of many non-notable vanity articles as "somewhat excessive" is not a breach of policy, nor guidelines, nor common practice. They are entitled to vote "keep" on articles about high school athletic fields&mdash;but they should not try to stifle community discussion by attempting to censure those who try, in good faith, to bring discussions up through proper channels. I have done things I regret on Wikipedia and have made mistakes in the past, sometimes breaking policy. This is not one of those situations. I have done nothing wrong.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Neutralitytalk 03:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Gmaxwell 03:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Bishonen | talk 08:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

View by User:Klonimus
As I see it, the fundamental issue is the disruption of VfD by nominating so many school articles at once.

Anyone with even a little bit of experience with VfD knows that school VfD's tend to become long and heated and usually end with No concensus. This sort of mass nomination is exactly the sort of socratic behavior that got User:GRider in hot water. Neutrality's actions have made VfD more acrimonious than needs be, and have wasted lots of time, as deletionists and inclusionists rush to vote on every article.

I don't think that Neutrality's actions violate VfD policy per se, but they do violate WP:POINT, since someone as experienced an admin member should have known that his actions would be disruptive and be perceived as disruptive by others.


 * 1) Klonimus 03:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) – ugen64 06:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

View by Carnildo
I agree that Neutrality did not violate policy here. I also agree that something needs to be done about the large number of low-quality school articles. But flooding VfD with school listings is not the way to deal with it!


 * 1) Carnildo 03:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Snowspinner 05:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Radiant_* 08:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5)    [ +t, +c ] 09:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Sjakkalle 09:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Geogre 04:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Jersyko    talk   20:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Prosfilaes 00:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

View by Calton
This strikes me as a blatant -- and bad faith -- attempt to stifle perfectly legal actions. The nominators themselves note that Neutrality is not violating policy, and he is, in my opinion, under no obligation to clear in advance perfectly valid VfD nominations, no matter who finds them inconvenient.


 * 1) Calton | Talk 05:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Radiant_* 08:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC) It strikes me that this RFC states that it objects to Neutrality's "over-use" of VfD, then proceeds to only list school nominations as examples. Arguably, this RFC is not about VfD at all, but specifically about schools.
 * 3) Dbiv 08:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4)    [ +t, +c ] 09:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5)  Blank Verse  &empty;  08:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Tannin 13:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Jayjg (talk)  20:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Several posters on various AfD's have suggested that because many recent nominations of schools have not lead to deletions, other nominations are soemhow invalid or disruptive. Untile there is consensus that "Schools are inherently notable" (which as far as i can tell there is not, currently) it is perfectly in order to nominate any such article, or indeed any article, for deletion. If there is evidence that the nominations were made in bad faith, that would be a violation of WP:POPINT which would be a policy violation. The certifiers, as i understand it, don't allege that. They baasically allege a failure to discuss these nomiantions. But an AfD nomination itself opens a forum for discussion. No policy that I know of requires anyone to respond to talk page comments on such an issue. DES (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

View by Firebug
There is not even a claim that User:Neutrality violated any Wikipedia policy, so I don't see what the basis for this RFC is. I do share the frustration of many users at seeing an endless series of school VFDs and the same arguments rehashed over and over again. We desperately need a real policy on school notability and to settle these arguments once and for all.


 * 1) Firebug 05:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) BrokenSegue 02:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) DES (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

View by DS1953
Although I do not think he is doing it out of malice, I do think that Neutrality is violating Wikipedia policy.

First and foremost, I believe his nominations for deletions violate the deletion policy. The policy states that among the problems which do not require deletion are a stub with potential (which should be expanded) or a minor branch of a subject that doesn't deserve its own article (which should be merged, with a redirect to the new location).

In most of Neutrality’s proposed deletions, he stated that the schools were “not notable.” (I assume that what he was trying to say was that the article had "no potential to become encyclopedic," since non-notability is not a listed problem that may require deletion.)  However, I think for someone to nominate a page for deletion, the policy clearly implies that the person take time to determine that there is "no potential to become encyclopedic." Obviously, someone who creates as many VfDs as Neutrality has in a short period of time has not looked at whether the subject of the article has the potential to become encyclopedic but at most whether the article (often clearly a stub) establishes “notability” on its face. In other words, he believes and has stated that he is entitled to propose deletion based solely on the existing content and it is up to someone else to show that the article does have the potential to become encyclopedic. To put it in legal terms, Neutrallity has unilaterally shifted the burden of proof from the person proposing deletion to the person seeking to retain the page, and on HIS time table, no less. That is not the deletion policy. Nominating a stub for deletion without making any independent determination that the subject has no potential to become encyclopedic violates the deletion policy.

On a more minor note, one of the four “key policies” at Wikipedia policies and guidelines is “Respect other contributors.” For guidelines, that policy refers the reader to Wikipedia etiquette which provides, among its principles: (1) avoid ... deletions whenever possible; (2) don't ignore questions; and (3) recognize your own biases and keep them in check.

I think that Neutrality in his recent actions has violated all three principles.

I don't disagree that there are articles on schools that can never be encyclopedic, but nomination a large number of articles in a short period of time with no due diligence on the part of the nominator shows clear disrepect to other contributors. Nominating pages without having first investigated the subject and then clearly stating the reasoning behind the nomination is wrong, and to do it over 50 times in a three day period merits comment.

By the way, I had never voted for or against deleting a school page before thirty-two hours ago and was not aware of Watch/schoolwatch until I saw it mentioned here. Schools happen to be at the center of this particular dispute for me only because the mass VfDs caught my attention. When less than a few minutes of Googling convinced me that the article on Bergen County Academies clearly had the potential to become encyclopedic and Neutrality responded to my posted comments in a way that I felt cavalierly disregarded the deletion policy, I spent the next several hours following his deletions and, in two cases, even working on school articles. Like another user commented on several of the VfD pages, I could have been doing something much more productive but for Neutrality's actions. Mass deletions in an area are a problem, whether or not the subject is schools.


 * 1) DS1953 06:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) David Gerard 18:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Hits the nail on the head.
 * 3) Klonimus 13:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) – ugen64 06:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

View by Gamaliel
I pretty much concur with Calton, but I'm posting this seperately because I have a few other things on my mind. Frankly, this is an outrageous abuse of RfC and a waste of time considering the seriousness of the problems addressed in the other current RfCs. God forbid people are inconvienced by having to vote on VfD. That sounds like the system working as intended, not abuse. This strikes me as a petulant rant against someone who didn't answer their messages and caused them some minor inconvience. Neutrality's use of VfD was perfectly valid and all of the nominations are perfectly valid. Inclusionists think that no schools should ever be submitted for VfD, but this is not policy, nor should it be, nor should they act as if it were policy. The people responsible for this should be censured, frankly, though I wouldn't want to waste everyone's time with another pointless RfC.


 * 1) Gamaliel 07:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Radiant_* 09:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Calton | Talk 02:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC) I agree with this, also. (And no "r"" in my name, BTW).
 * Sorry, I'm a poor speeler. Gamaliel 02:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Blank Verse  &empty;  08:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Jayjg (talk)  20:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Bishonen | talk 08:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) The War on Cruft should continue. 17:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)Dunc|&#9786;
 * 6) Sarg 17:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

View by Chriscf
Agree with most of what has been said above, DS1953 excepted. This is patently absurd, and a deliberate abuse of RfC as a tool to force an agenda. While people have been pulled up for VfD behaviour before, it's typically because there is something fundamentally wrong. The nominations are sound, and state reasons for deletion. Looks like a very thinly-veiled attempt by someone to badger someone they don't agree with. Worth noting that not only is it clear that there is no breach of policy, but the section identifying the other party in the "dispute" is notably absent.


 * 1) Chris talk back 08:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Radiant_* 09:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Blank Verse  &empty;  08:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Jayjg (talk)  20:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

View by Szyslak
I'd like to address the claim that simply listing a school article for deletion is "against policy." The reason we have VfD in the first place is that there's an inherent possibility for disagreement in deletion debates. When someone nominates an article for deletion in good faith and with a reasonable knowledge of deletion policy, it is because, in the view of the nominator, the article meets one of the conditions for deletion. For articles about schools whose notability is in question, the possible criteria include, but aren't limited to, "no potential to become encyclopedic," vanity, and "completely idiosyncratic non-topic." These criteria allow for a good amount of flexibility on a case-by-case basis, as they should. Anyone who doesn't agree with that should take their objections to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy.

Neutrality made his nominations because, in good faith, he thinks the schools he nominated aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. As we can clearly see on the relevant VfD pages, a lot of people disagree with that view. Right now we're nowhere near consensus on what schools merit articles on Wikipedia. Setting aside articles about clearly notable schools that would easily survive a VfD (like, say, Little Rock Central High School), and those that are so obscure they have little chance of getting more than token "keep" votes (such as most elementary schools), there is plenty of middle ground and no clear line between schools that belong on Wikipedia and those that don't.

What it all boils down to is, Neutrality didn't break a single "Wikipedia policy" when he made his nominations. One could argue that 30-something VfD nominations in one day is a little "excessive," and perhaps I'd agree to an extent. But where's the policy violation? There is none, because there is no "don't nominate schools" policy to violate. Even if Neutrality's nominations did violate policy, his offenses aren't anywhere near serious enough to merit an RfC. (Full disclosure: I've nominated a lot of schools for deletion, so if it's against policy to nominate schools, I suppose Requests for comment/Szyslak would be a possibility. ;) )


 * 1)    [ +t, +c ] 09:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Radiant_* 13:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

View by David Gerard
I discussed this with Neutrality on IRC last night. As I understand it, he saw it as a long, laborious piece of Wiki maintenance, being done ten or twenty a day. He wasn't aware of how his mass-nominations were coming across to people (I described it to him as "like GRider in reverse"). By acting rather than talking, he was giving the wrong impression. (This is why "state your point" is a good idea.)

Active and so-far productive discussion is underway at Schools, and Neutrality is participating, and hasn't made any more school nominations in the meantime. I encourage all parties interested in this RFC to come to Schools and join in. - David Gerard 18:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) David Gerard 18:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2)  Blank Verse  &empty;  07:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Radiant_* 13:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC) but I haven't seen Neutrality participating there yet.
 * 4) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

View by linas
Lets keep this in perspective. WP has zillions of articles about topics that are not particularly noteworthy and are less encyclopaedic than some random article about some school. These articles are not hard to find. They're everywhere. Just take a look around: Category:Soviet Navy submarines or Category:Poland geography stubs or List of Pokémon by name or Category:Sitcoms or Category:Submarine power cables. Yet some people feel compelled to write about these things, no matter how absurd this very same topic may seem to others. Why single out schools for deletion? To me, it seems to be an awfully intolerant act, of either hatred or spite or loathing of thier school years. This person has issues with schooling. linas 01:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm actually a current high school student who adores my school. Neutralitytalk 01:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) linas 01:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

View by Kappa
I believe that Neutrality's Vfd nominations were made in good faith, but showed a lack of understanding of the balance of opinion and the mechanics of the process. Without that understanding, it was unwise to make so many nominations in such a short space of time. Happily he appears to have reconsidered his methods in response to events. Regarding Neutrality's failure to respond to attempts to communicate, this may have been because he "don't feel like showing the least bit of respect" for some people because of the way they vote. This is regrettable IMO. Kappa 13:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) – ugen64 06:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

View by DES
While I think the basis for This RfC is invalid, in that there was no policy violation whatsoever, I do want to draw attention to WP:VVU. It seems that Neutrality closed three school AfD debates as delete without anythithing like a consensus to do so, and sepeedy delted three other such arricles, with no justification in any of the current speedy deletion criteria. While I would have voted to delete each of the articels involved as non-notable, I oppose what seems to me to be a violation of policy and an abandonment of consensus in the deleton process. This IMO is the real issue with which this RfC ought to be concerned. DES (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Prosfilaes 14:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
'All threaded discussion has been moved to the Talk page.