Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua 2

Outside view by User:x42bn6

 * If you allow me to comment, I just wanted to point out a few things. My English is not perfect but I was convinced that the 3RR-warning is not a threat. I just wanted to point out to FN that he/she breached it and that someone might block him/her for it. It's of course no content argument, but I was not really trying to argue about the inclusion of those sections. Also, my link to this discussion was not based on the fact that I wanted to use it as an argument but rather to point out that just saying "WP:PROVEIT" without being willing to discuss it will not work. It has not here and that's why we are here, isn't it? So, to keep it short: I did not argue about FN's edits as such (merely pointing out possible reasons why others might think otherwise) but tried to stop him/her from edit warring and to get him/her to start discussing it. I am sorry if it sounded like anything else, that was not my intention. Regards  So Why  08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Fasach Nua, however, has used WP:PROVEIT in conjunction with arguments, as the thread by MickMacNee shows, but I thought that WP:PROVEIT alone would suffice in this case.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  15:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think this RFC is about the nature of the changes but about the way FN tried to implement them. I think it should be about alleged edit warring and 3RR violations or refusal to discuss rather then about whether those sections should be kept or deleted. There are other places to discuss that and frankly I think the reason for this RFC is that none of the people arguing removal have shown willingness to discuss it there. Just pointing out because people seem want to make this about the nature of the edits (both those supporting and opposing FN's edits) and I think this should only be about the way they were done. Might just be me though...  So Why  15:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but "the other side" has arguably also been disruptive by not giving any reasons for inclusion, while jumping on Fasach Nua's back and using his behaviour as an excuse to rebut his WP:PROVEIT argument - which I disagree with. x42bn6 Talk Mess  22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the Requests_for_comment instructions, it states it could bring "close scrutiny on all involved editors", a big part of the issues is editors uploading unsourced POV, and as an involved editor who started this RFC process, I feel it is not unreasonable that you justify why you added unsourced material to the encylopedia, here and here. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Several reasons for inclusion have been made:
 * WP:COMMONSENSE. Nobody can possibly argue that an objective neutral and sourced list of famous players for each team could not be drawn up and agreed upon with cooperation and commons sense, and this doesn't need a simplistic global goals/caps limit, which infact would hamper it if misapplied to exclude brilliant but fleeting careers. Fasach's approach does not recognise this basic fact because he would never engage on an individual team article with editors interested in the subject, because he is not interested in improving them, his stated aim in his own words is to remove the sections completely as they are "nonsense". There is also the common sense position that any players not obviously belonging in a famous player section would be removed without incident. Wikipedia does not function on the assumption that readers/editors are completely stupid, and as such, every single sentence needs a source. I believe that is actually spelled out in the sourcing policies.
 * WP:CONSENSUS. It quite simply dictates that if you are continually reverted by multiple editors, then you don't have it, no matter how right you think you are. Bizzarely, "WP:CONSENSUS" has been a reply used by Fasach to reverters (literally that capitalised link, with no other explanation).
 * WP:PROVEIT applies to controversial material. These sections have been long standing and only one person is making the claim there is a controversy here. Sure, some people here and at ANI are now mildly agreeing with his argument, once their attention is drawn to the problems he is causing others, but if they don't then participate to improve the articles then that's not a very moral position to take, in the face of editors who do edit and upkeep the articles and have to deal with him. It's also not very moral to even give his behaviour credence. This is recognised as not helpful to the project, even if he is 100% right, as it deters contributors. This conclusion somes up at arbitration cases regularly.
 * WP:NOTABILITY His continued assertions that he has no way of telling why a player is considered famous because there are no sources per WP:CITE (he has also attempted to {fact} tag every single player in a section to make his point) have been rebutted by the fact all he has to do is look at the player's article. If he can't tell from that because of lack of sources, then he has a case for removal, which if he took up in the correct manner, tagging valid cases and discussing if opposed when removing, he would likely succeed in his stated of improving the sections, if that is his aim. And if he was opposed with arguments of the form "he's my favourite player" and no sources were forthcoming, then quite clearly he would succeed also. I would be interested if he had any examples where he has tried this, and been unsuccesfull in removing a player that could not be adjudged famous from sources. MickMacNee (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, MickMacNee. I can't find where on Earth Fasach Nua has said these lists are nonsense.  At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19, Fasach Nua says: "All content must satisfy wp:verify, a list of 100 most capped playes can satisfy this, a list of 50 top scorers can satisfy this, but if there is to be section called "notable" or "famous" it must satisfy wp:verify criteria. I do not know how to satisfy this criteria on these two topic, if it can be met then keep them, and if it can't lose them. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)"  Here, Fasach Nua is not opposed to some list, but only if it can be verified.
 * I linked his nonsense comment in this very Rfc. A list of x caps is practicaly meaningless, and while it would satisfy a wikilawyers approach to wp:proveit, it does nothing to improve the quality of the article or help anyone understand why a player is considered famous for that team. Plenty of outstanding players would not make an arbitrary limit, and plenty of unremarkable squad players would make it, due to being reliable/not prone to injury. This is quite clearly, when examined beyond such simplistic interpretation of policy, not even worth applying, it is as bad as having no criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are continuously reverted by multiple users, you may be going against consensus. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19, I see no consensus exists at all.  I see no clear-cut criteria that was agreed upon to include players in these sections - I see various arguments such as recentism.
 * I can't explain consensus any better than it is defined. I don't think may even comes into it here. On mass tagging, there is clear consensus this is not helpfull. On the content, on straight removal it is just clear he is in the minority, unless you want to assert every editor reverting is wrong and he is right. As said before, he's had ample opportunity to seek third opinion, this doesn't have to be wp:footy, but if there is truly no consensus on the criteria for including players, then again, that does not result in a Fasach is right result, it is what it is, no consensus and therefore as in deletion debates/move requests etc, there is no change. MickMacNee (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that Corvus Cornix and I make it less of a "majority" in Fasach Nua's "corner". He's gone ahead looking for help before - there are two links Fasach Nua provided in his response.  And when we work with the likes of BLPs, no-consensus defaults to delete or remove.  If there is no consensus for it to be included, it should be removed - not default to "keep".  x42bn6 Talk Mess  20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * WP:PROVEIT does not apply to controversial material. It applies to any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.  In this case, Fasach Nua has stated that some, or all of these players on these lists do not have a basis to be included, and since the burden of proof lies upon the includer, a citation is required.  If the sections have been long-standing, it doesn't necessarily make it correct - perhaps nobody has gone ahead and WP:SOFIXIT.
 * Of course it applies to controversial material, if you take the one man dispute = must debate the issue until everybody agrees with him, that is obviously non-productive. I would say there has already been plenty of consideration given to his objections given it is the objection of one person, against anyone who has ever editted these articles. If there is no consensus on how to 'proveit', then there is no consensus. Again, this does not defualt to the 'one objector is right' outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT tells people who wish to include information to "prove it". Finding consensus on "proving it" isn't about WP:PROVEIT.  If there is no clear way of "proving it", it should be removed - by WP:V.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  20:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "but if they don't then participate to improve the articles then that's not a very moral position to take" - Not everyone knows about football or follows it, and not everyone knows whether Paolo Maldini is famous for his Italy exploits or Milan exploits, or even if they know who Maldini is. And clearly, some editors' stances match that of Fasach Nua's actions - it probably wouldn't be a good idea to go ahead and do the same, would it?
 * I don't follow here. You're saying lack of knowledge excludes anyone from fixing an article? This clearly isn't a wikipedia rule, anybody can edit an article. wp:footy isn't here to give him approval for his changes, but neither is it here to dance to his tune until his view of the truth is met. MickMacNee (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You complained about WP:AN/I users coming in and commenting, "but if [...] then that's not a very moral position to take". I'm explaining why you can't complain about these WP:AN/I users because they're not WP:SOFIXIT-ing things.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fasach Nua does not say this. Fasach Nua says that he/she does not know how to satisfy the criteria and believes it is WP:OR without citations (same quote as above).  A post by Egghead06 was made on 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC), stating: "Surely these lists are just what they say they are - lists? If I want to check why a particular player is notable for say, playing for England, I click on the name and read the article. If the article fails to support 'England notablity' then the article is at fault and either it should be amended to prove notabilty or the player's name removed from the notabilty list. In a nutshell these lists shouldn't prove notabilty, the individual article should (IMHO!).--Egghead06 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)" which I assume is the "rebuttal" of the WP:POINTy addition of  tagging.  But this post was made after he started tagging (which appears to be 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)) - this in itself does not appear to be a POINTy edit.  Possibly inappropriate, but not really my point.  But to be fair, when I look at the Italian national football team and see Alberto Aquilani, Luca Toni, Alberto Gilardino, Daniele De Rossi, Georgio Chiellini, Fabio Grosso, Antonio Cassano and Mauro Camoranesi, to name a few, on the Notable players section, I believe I have a case that perhaps the entire list is probably problematic as a whole.  Of course these players are good players - they made the Azzurri!  But are they famous for their Azzurri exploits?  Most likely no.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  23:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As Fasach, your response to your own personal doubts about a few players is to assume the whole seciton is rubbish and toss the lot, instead of following the normal procedures for highlighting specific doubts about article content accuracy. Have you actually looked at these players articles for evidence they are maybe famous azzuri because...? This is the least you should do before like Fasach going on a mission to tag all secitons that he has clearly not even researched. MickMacNee (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Did you know that in some cases, you could use a survey of about 5,000 people in China to justify the entire population of China?  I probably would have removed it, by WP:BOLD and WP:V, which might have been reverted, and WP:BRD follows.  No, I have not looked at these articles, but I do follow football and I don't need Wikipedia articles to figure out that, say Alberto Aquilani is far, far from being a famous Azzurri.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  20:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wiggy!

 * Comment: No. Drop by my talk page if you'd like to see a list of "spurious vandalism warnings". That was FN's style. Not something that should have been done and especially not in the middle of a discussion. He's at least moved off that, but now doesn't communicate by failing to provide edit summaries or engage in meaningful discussion. Wiggy! (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is hardly any kind of "reasonable description". It is a magnificent example of the stupidly aggressive conduct that endears you to other editors. Wiggy! (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiggy, do you think Fasach Nua's "aggression" could be down to him removing unsourced information about people?
 * "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."


 * x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite to comment.


 * My core issue is that FN is being arbitrary and taking it solely on himself to make things "right". The concern is not limited to noteable player lists, but extends to logos, images, and other user contributions, including whatever he decides is not "right" next.


 * It clear from doing the Wikipedia thing for a while that absolutes are hard to come by. The process of developing consensus and the evolution of credible sets of policies and guidelines is just that - a process. FN's approach denies other editors a legitimate voice in that process and in the implementation of policy and gudieline. It is not his right, duty, mission or anything else to usurp the roles of other contributors. He needs to learn to respect other editors and not carry on in the ignorantly high-handed manner he has chosen. Slapping down other editors and characterizing their edits as vandalism after failing to provide credible edit summaries, or refusing to respond to questions or legitimate challenges to his views is not acceptable. His reponses need to be productive and non-rhetorical in character, otherwise it smacks of a deliberate attempt to provoke a riot. And it happens over and over again with this guy. I cannot accept that his edits are made in good faith or for the genuine betterment of the encyclopedia when he feels it necessary to belittle other editors by characterizing them as "the mob", and deliberately disdaining to provide clear and meaningful edit summaries. That's just looking for a fight and that's what he's getting.


 * That said, the development of a tag for the noteable player sections is the first truly useful and community oriented act I've seen out of FN through this whole mess. I can accept the use of the tag because it provides fair notice to other editors and affords them the opportunity to respond to a concern expressed in a civil and informative manner, and should hopefully engender some meaningful dialogue instead of provoking a mind numbing volume of petty edits wars. Wiggy! (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiggy, if this was in as a view i'd give the first half a full endorsement and the second a hopeful outcome.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)