Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tennis expert

Something of a reply to Tennis expert's response
Now that Tennis expert has responded to the RFC, I wish I'd waited to post my analysis of the situation, as he brings up several points that I feel I may have missed. To address TE's response point-by-point: I am growing more and more convinced that Tennis expert has become a net detriment to work on tennis articles, and unless his behavior radically reforms, a topic ban discussion should be started at WP:AN, possibly coupled with compulsory mentorship. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I did attempt to resolve this and at least two other disputes directly involving Tennis expert. I've now provided a diff of the most recent attempt to my initial endorsement of the RfC, though it's by no means the only case where I attempted resolution. As a volunteer at WP:EAR I am not obliged to remain neutral when I feel the case does not call for it. Please read WP:EA.
 * 2) The pending arbitration case is immaterial to this dispute, and in fact I believe your continued insistent dredging up of that arbitration case is one of the reasons this RfC needed to be called. This RfC was called as a result of a behavioral dispute. Period.
 * 3) Untrue. I encouraged Alonso to bring this RfC, at which point he sought assistance in this unfamiliar matter from an involved editor. It's very common for multiple involved editors to collaborate on an RfC.
 * 4) We are discussing your behavior, not another user's.
 * 5) See above.
 * 6) Just as a court decision can grant trial precedent on indirectly-related issues, the consensus of which a peer review is suggestive can be applied to other articles, as it seems to have been in the case of Serena Williams. The Hantuchová peer review was conducted by two editors unrelated to this case who both concluded that the Hantuchová article had excessive detail and should be reduced per WP:SS. While this has not yet been done, it's a trivial matter to extend those suggestions to other articles such as Serena Williams.
 * 7) You have disruptively edit warred. Please see my view for links to the Williams page history showing periods in which you engaged in disruptive edit warring.
 * 8) Please provide diffs to prove vandalism by Wikipedia's definition. You've only shown diffs of edits which, at worst, assume bad faith. And considering Alonso's status as a relatively new user, some leeway should be in order when, for example, he suggests a ban prematurely.
 * 9) This statement only goes to show your lack of understanding of how consensus works on Wikipedia. There is consensus to reduce the size of the Williams article via WP:SS, which you have constantly refused to accept. WP:PRESERVE does not apply as the content is going to be preserved in other articles.
 * 10) I am shocked at this assumption of bad faith and accusation of sockpuppetry without any evidence. In Sockpuppet investigations/Alonsornunez/Archive, the CheckUser specifically said that there is no evidence to suggest sockpuppetry in the case of Alonso.
 * 11) You've ignored the point of Ordinary Person's view. The tags you removed were there to address problems with article content, and you removed them without resolving that problem to the satisfaction of the group of editors at Serena Williams.
 * Note that Tennis expert revised his response at 12:47 UTC. Upon looking at the changes, I believe every single point I've made above is still valid. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The pending arbitration case is entirely relevant because it bears on the suspect motivations of the four editors who endorsed this proceeding, which not one other editor has endorsed. "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack."  Therefore, the behavior and motivations of other editors is relevant in any RFC.  Please show where the information deleted from the Serena Williams article appears in another article.  Only the career statistics information was forked.  Vast amounts of textual and factual material were simply deleted in contravention of WP:PRESERVE, and erroneous information (which I tried to fix) was preserved through edit warring by Alonsornunez.  I removed the tag and revised the text, which you should have realized had you dispassionately examined the diffs and the discussion.  This exemplifies the problem I have with your consistent lack of impartiality and thoroughness.  Nothing in WP:SS contradicts WP:PRESERVE.  Please provide the exact diffs of where I disruptively edit warred.  And while you're at it, please provide the diffs of Alonsornunez et al. edit warring in the same article.  Finally, a peer review has nothing whatsoever to do with a trial or trial precedents, and it's strange for you to argue otherwise.  Even Wikipedia arbitration decisions have no precedential value.  Tennis expert (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the arbitration case is not relevant. This is not an abuse of the DR process; it is not a personal attack, it is not harassment, and you have provided no direct evidence to support either. Your procedural objection to this RfC is simply incorrect.
 * The problem isn't that WP:PRESERVE and WP:SS contradict. The problem is your understanding of WP:PRESERVE is erroneous- please see my recommendations for the Andy Murray article, specifically where I show that WP:PRESERVE in fact supports the removal of content to fork articles.
 * You're right, though, that the content removed has not yet been moved to any fork articles. However, I would argue that per WP:DEADLINE, those fork articles can wait. The information is preserved in the edit history and references which were used to introduce that data to the article.
 * Tennis expert, like I said in my view, I acknowledge that you're quite astute when it comes to tennis, and I do agree with you on a number of points (e.g., that the content from these articles should be preserved, or the nomenclature for the Miami Masters articles). However, what I disagree with is your approach to editing and your approach to finding consensus. If instead of revert warring, you'd just discussed the changes, I'd be able to support you. If you'd called a content RfC when it looked like you weren't getting through to the other editors, I'd be able to support you. Honestly, even if you had edit warred, but you hadn't continually brought in the arbitration case after being asked not to, I could support you. But, here we are. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * About the forking, none of the editors in question has ever said that they intended to fork the deleted material. In fact, The Rambling Man has said just the opposite despite being reminded about WP:PRESERVE, dubiously citing the good article and feature article review process.  And from previous discussions on the Serena Williams talk page, Alfonsornunez and other members of that group were aware of WP:PRESERVE but to date have made no effort to fork the deleted material.  Aside from all this, the Serena Williams article never needed forking as it was never "too long" per Wikipedia guidelines.  I am surprised that you said you were prepared to support me.  You've been pushing an RFC on me for some time, well before any of the Serena Williams edits in question ever happened.  Yet, you continued to become immediately involved in editor assistance requests initiated by Alfonsornunez, which presumes that the responder would have some impartiality and which you plainly do not have.  Finally, I've been very clear about why I cite the arbitration evidence, here and elsewhere.  The Rambling Man in particular continues to exhibit the exact kinds of behavior that have been so thoroughly documented in the arbitration case.  Whenever he uses disruption to influence other editors, especially inexperienced editors, and attempts to foster an unconstructive and "us versus them" editing environment, his past history is clearly relevant and material.  Those editors need to know what's going on.  Tennis expert (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea why you think I select or even look at editor's experience levels. After all, the only editor I have ever known to actively discriminate against an editor as a result of his age is User:Tennis expert.  Perhaps we could ask the editors in question whether they've been bullied into submission by me or not.  And as I've asked below, there is no "us vs them".  It just appears to be Tennis expert versus the rest of Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss as to what Tennis expert is trying to infer by this statement of Rambling Man's "influence" in regards to new editors (and here I am of course assuming that he is talking about me). The Rambling Man, as well as the other editors involved in the Serena Williams article, have been nothing but helpful and encouraging, the process has been nicely collaborative and productive. This cooperation itself seems suspicious to Tennis expert; on 16 Apri in the Serena Williams Talk page he stated that "the truth of my opinions isn't as sexy as the lies they've been telling or as emotionally fulfilling as the man-bonding they've been experiencing" which seems like a strange interpretation of collaboration. As Rambling Man has stated above, there is no "us vs. them" mentality. Alonsornunez  Comments  14:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be instructive to ask User:Alan16 to contribute here, or at least give him the opportunity to discuss my "puppet mastery". He and I did not agree initially on my tagging of Andy Murray as containing excessive intricate detail, but, after discussion, he understood my perspective (in-line with all the other tennis biographies I have tagged) and decided to do something about it.  His edits were met by hostility, discrimination and bad faith as the discussion at Talk:Andy Murray makes evident.  User:LeaveSleaves also appeared to notionally accept the idea of reducing the level of excessive intricate detail in the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tennis expert, I've said it before, and I'll say it again; as a volunteer at WP:EAR I am in no way obligated to be impartial or neutral in my evaluation of a situation. Even so, disagreeing with you or a manner in which you approach a topic is no evidence of a disruptive bias, which you seem to suggest. If you need evidence of my willingness to treat this situation impartially, I suggest you look at my comments at WT:TENNIS and Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 46.
 * WP:PRESERVE specifically says that information that belongs in a "finished" article should be retained and tagged if necessary. "Finished article" in this instance is generally accepted to refer to a featured article, or at least an A-class article. The Hantuchová peer review concluded that the excessive detail in that article should be forked, and it's quite reasonable to extend that conclusion to other tennis biographies.
 * The only way the arbitration case is connected to this RfC is in your continued insistent references to it which have only served to derail constructive content-focused discussion. This behavior alone, as you've been repeatedly asked to focus on content instead of contributors, suggests a real WP:IDHT problem. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If a person who responds to WP:EAR is biased, then that procedure is a complete waste of time (yours and everyone else's). As for "finished" in WP:PRESERVE, your assumptions and suppositions are erroneous on their face.  No article is ever "finished" on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it has been featured.  I suggest you study the following: "Try to preserve information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot."  Tennis expert (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The info will be forked over as part of the process of cleaning up the article for GA/FA consideration. Though a bit of a gray area (what isn't on Wikipedia) the Daniela Hantuchova peer review seemed to infer greatly that such intricate detail and match-by-match minutiae did not belong in a FA/A article for that player, or any other for that matter. Clearly, no article is ever 'finished' (especially one regarding an active player) but as Mendaliv stated above "finished" refers to the general state of 'polish' associated with a FA article. Alonsornunez  Comments  06:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And your source for that definition of "finished" is what? You could have avoided a lot of controversy by making your forking intentions clear a long time ago.  I have brought up this exact issue and cited WP:PRESERVE numerous times, only to be met with "the article needs to be cut down" or the equivalent.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:PRESERVE: "Try to preserve information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve content you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change." Note the "Try" in the beginning. Note the "cleaned up on the spot". Note the "go ahead and do it". I guess these policies can be used to whatever purpose one has. One can, e.g., choose just to focus on the word "preserve", and, presto, no article should be void of anything.--HJensen, talk 06:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am here assuming good faith and trusting Mendaliv when they state that an FA/A article is generally accepted to be as close to finished as an article gets (which makes sense, right?). Also see WP:FINISHED, but you know that right? Alonsornunez Comments  06:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

← To Tennis expert: bull. I think you're trying to employ reductio ad absurdum here to demean my contributions to WP:EAR; though the point seems to be missing. Furthermore, you're ignoring the spirit and purpose of WP:PRESERVE to sustain an argument that is contrary to consensus on an article. I think it's rapidly becoming clear that you either don't understand or have no intention of understanding why we're here. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another addendum
Tennis expert has made yet another addendum to his response to the RfC case, which yet again has failed to directly address the behavioral concerns for which this RfC was brought. Below, I discuss each new point: The general problem here is the same as before- that Tennis expert has not addressed the problems that caused this RfC to be brought. Regardless of who is correct in terms of interpreting WP:PRESERVE, it is Tennis expert's manner and means of enforcing his preferred policy interpretations that is problematic, and must be corrected before we can move forwards. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In point #13, Tennis expert blatantly assumes bad faith on the part of a significant portion of the participants of this RfC, and does so without presenting any direct, specific evidence to support the conclusion that the editors he names are acting in bad faith. This point also goes along with the issue mentioned previously that Tennis expert is only making procedural objections rather than engaging in substantive discussion. While I would like to assume the assumption of good faith, this point makes no sense unless Tennis expert is assuming bad faith.
 * In point #14, Tennis expert accuses Goodmorningworld of what amounts to ownership issues or a failure to understand consensus on Wikipedia, and does so without providing any diffs or other evidence to support such a conclusion, which is suggestive of an assumption of bad faith by Tennis expert.
 * In point #15, Tennis expert questions the first point of "Evidence of disputed behavior". I agree, it is not clear as to where there is a violation of protocol; it should be clarified such that no assumptions need to be made in order to understand where the problematic behavior lies.
 * In point #16, Tennis expert says that Wikipedia policy states that third parties are not permitted to revert editors' edits to userspace (his implication: if party A makes an edit to party B's userspace, party C is not permitted to revert party A's contribution). I have never heard of any such policy clause, and challenge Tennis expert to show it. Furthermore, I have seen many, many occasions where third party reverts in userspace are in fact constructive and quite acceptable. It's also noteworthy that the conclusion of administrators in that same dispute was that should Tennis expert engage in the same behavior that he did- namely, making such unwelcome edits to that page, he should be blocked. This speaks strongly in favor of a third party revert of said edits, regardless of whether said third party was an administrator.
 * In point #17, Tennis expert refers to the removal of content from an article as "permanent deletion". This is a highly inaccurate characterization, as in no case were revisions deleted, and thus the content removed from the most current form of the article was still present and accessible in the page history. Furthermore, Tennis expert has yet again failed to refute the "finished article" portion of WP:PRESERVE which would seem to refute his entire argument- he has in no instance (that I can recall) successfully argued that the content being removed actually belongs in the "finished article" form of Serena Williams.
 * You are doing an admirable patient job here!--HJensen, talk 22:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a well considered (and revealing) post. Thanks.  HWV258  22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom mention by TE
Tennis expert mentions that I and others have zero credibility as there is evidence against us at an ongoing ArbCom. Just so that nobody get the wrong idea: all "evidence" involving me is presented by Tennis expert. So much for credibility. I may also add that he himself is under scrutiny at the same Arbcom. (Just in case someone actually would pay attention to that.) At that Arbcom he, speaking of the "pathetically transparent effort at "pay back" " as he does, he only started to accuse me after I showed 150+ of some of his edit reversions with an emphasizs that I would NEVER formally accuse anybody at an ArbCom. Few moments later I was accused for everything on this planet. "Pay back"? I think so. In this case: No—everybody was getting on just fine improving the Serena Williams article, until Tennis expert stepped in. Ho hum. --HJensen, talk 12:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you were simply not a high priority when I was providing evidence in the arbitration case. I had always intended to provide evidence about your behavior, and then you assumed a motivation that never actually existed.  And, no, not everybody was fine with the radical changes you guys made to the Serena Williams article.  Wikipedia policy says that radical changes should be discussed first.  Others had previously objected to the chopping of the article (without forking).  But notwithstanding all that, you guys proceeded anyway and then edit warred to protect the changes.  Alfonsornunez's last edits to the article along with subsequent edits by your group members prove that edit warring is a perfectly acceptable tactic in your group's opinion.  That's a problem.  Tennis expert (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As for "Sorry, but you were simply not a high priority when I was providing evidence in the arbitration case." I am really pleased. I forgive you. I also thought that 14 edits over two months in accordance with the MOS were a bit to little to be called edit warring. Nevertheless, you went on and wasted a lot of people's time by making the accusations formal. As for "I had always intended to provide evidence about your behavior, and then you assumed a motivation that never actually existed.", I am genuinly sorry but I really don't understand the meaning of the second part. The first part I understand perfectly. I have realized now that you will file a formal complaint against aynbody who crosses your path; some policy will always do for you. If not, you can just make incivil trash talk when at the same time labelling your own opinions as the truth; the relevant quote in the diff goes like "But certain men like you just refuse to listen because the truth of my opinions isn't as sexy as the lies they've been telling or as emotionally fulfilling as the man-bonding they've been experiencing" --HJensen, talk 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you already realize that it is for the arbitration committee to decide whether the evidence I provided is a "waste" of people's time. I have my viewpoint.  You have yours.  I suggest that you present your arguments to the arbitrators directly to ensure that you are heard.  Tennis expert (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want to waste people's time with every peculiar thing you say. We don't all have too much time on our hands. --HJensen, talk 06:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Per HJensen, all evidence presented to ArbCom involving me is presented by Tennis expert. The only reaction it generated from the community was User:Hex's comment: "Sorry, but I can't agree with this: the material presented above is disagreement, not disruption." And yes, the community was working really well, in collaboration with each other (this is what has been perceived as "tag team edit warring") to improve the Serena Williams article. There seems to be a real "you're all out to get me" perception.  Wrong, we're all out to improve this article as a collaborative group.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you mean "your" group, then I guess you are correct. But if you mean "all editors", then you are clearly incorrect.  Your group's edit warring proves that only your group's edits are acceptable to your group.  Also, I would be interested in knowing whether you agree with Alfonsornunez's restoration of the Serena Williams article just a few hours ago and, if you don't, what should be done about it.  Finally, your citation of Hex is disingenuous.  He is not even a member of the arbitration committee.  Perhaps you should read an arbitration committee member's summary of the evidence, too.  You're mentioned prominently.  Tennis expert (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain where the other editors who have thusfar disagreed with the edits to Serena Williams are lurking? And yes, the ArbCom member seems to note that I made just over half as many reversions as you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the Serena Williams discussion page for the editors who in the past or currently objected to the proposal to delete material from the Serena Williams article without forking it. I would still like to know what your opinion is about the Alfonsornunez restoration....  Tennis expert (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Homework done. I've re-read the whole of the talk page and I can find only three users (including Tennis expert) who had a problem with the removal of excessive intricate detail.  Meanwhile, nine editors expressed an opinion that the article required attention.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Desired outcome kind of non-concrete
Something that kind of bothers me is that the desired outcome of this RfC is really nonspecific. Per advice at WP:RFC/HOW, I'd suggest some good points to consider are the following: The first point restricts Tennis expert from using his arbitration evidence as a bludgeon in content disputes (which I believe has happened), while allowing him to continue his participation in such ongoing arbitration if he so wishes. The second is less specific at this point, but very important in my view, as Tennis expert has engaged in edit warring. WP:TENNIS is trying to work towards creating featured content with the eventual aim of creating guidelines for tennis content, and that edit warring, regardless of the policy- or guideline-based rationale behind it, is holding back such progress. I don't think WP:1RR is necessarily the answer, but it's the best I can think of for the time being, and as Tennis expert believes his reverts are in line with WP:BRD, an agreement to abide by it probably won't work. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Tennis expert will agree to make an effort to comment on content, not on contributors in the venue of article writing (diffs exemplifying where this hasn't happened)
 * 2) Tennis expert will voluntarily restrict himself to WP:1RR on (a single tennis article), which has been chosen by other members of WP:TENNIS for improvement to FA-status, for a period of (up to a few weeks)


 * Another possibility would be for Tennis expert to voluntarily withdraw from editing Serena Williams while the article undergoes preparation for WP:FAC. If one editor can't/won't pull in the same direction as all the others working to the same goal, he should step aside. Speculating about what the correct 'improvements' are, and throwing around recriminations would be entirely unproductive. If Tennis expert cannot agree that what we are doing is correct, he should at least let us try to get there without him. Maybe we'll fall flat on our faces, in which case we may well beg him to help guide us in future. However, we will never know until we see from the FAC review what points of improvement remain after our marathon. Once we have the first tennis FAC, it will be a model to follow for the next one. (Perish the thought, but perhaps such loss of control is what he fears the most...) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd view that as a suboptimal outcome. What would be good is if the set of people interested in that article can compromise enough to agree on an approach, and that set all use their knowledge to make the article as good as possible within the bounds of that agreed approach. Tennis Expert would have a valuable contribution to make to the article even if it is not as long and detailed as he'd like. Of course in the real world sometimes we have to make do with suboptimal outcomes. Ordinary Person (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, your assumption is incorrect and biased. I have never used arbitration evidence as a "bludgeon in content disputes". I use it exactly as I have stated before. And I will not agree to the one revert restriction. As a gesture of your impartiality, I suggest that you weigh in on the seven reverts that Alonsornunez made to the Serena Williams article in a 16-hour period and the five reverts that HJensen made to that article in a 4-hour period, not counting the three made by other people on their side, namely The Rambling Man and Ohconfucius. You can find the diffs here. Tennis expert (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Addendum: There actually were many more reverts in that time period, but per WP:3RR, I'm counting only those that followed edits by another editor, i.e., I am not counting consecutive reverts without an intervening edit by someone else. Tennis expert (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Five revert by me? Not. see here. You have a tendency to count things where I correct your mistakes (e.g. when you changed a heading into something incorrect). But I am now being told that a revert is a revert. No matter what. Ok, That was new to me. So, if I insert 4 mistakes in an article and you revert, then you are in breach of 3RR? And if you only revert two of them, and another editor reverts the other two, then you are a tag team?--HJensen, talk 06:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "And if you only revert two of them, and another editor reverts the other two, then you are a tag team?" LOL. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, Tennis expert, I agree with Ed Johnston's interpretation of your behavior that you didn't meet any of the valid exceptions to 3RR. Partial reverts count as reverts for the purposes of 3RR. 3RR is a policy, not a guideline, which means that additional exceptions to it via WP:IAR are going to be less likely to be valid. That said, I will agree with you that Alonso and HJensen broke 3RR on the 26th. You're right not to count multiple reverts with no intervening edits; those don't count towards 3RR and should be considered as one large revert. I haven't looked specifically at the other editors as I think there's no point; I would suggest that there is a consensus at that article (being mindful that consensus is specifically not unanimity) which was maintained. The maintenance of consensus is specifically not tag teaming.
 * You're right that calling your use of arbitration evidence "bludgeoning" was biased, and I apologize for that characterization; it seemed a concise and appropriate metaphor at the time. I will however stand by my statement that your use of said evidence in at-best tangentially-related disputes is disruptive and is one of the main problems here. See Talk:Serena Williams, for a conversation intended to focus on article content that was immediately derailed by your use of arbitration evidence. Also see Talk:Andy Murray where you brought up arbitration evidence as soon as TheRamblingMan entered the discussion, whereupon it quickly degenerated into a discussion focused on the contributors involved in the dispute rather than any actual content.
 * I'm not saying you're the only person at fault here; as my grandmother always said, it takes two to tango. However, what I do believe is that your manner in these disputes is disruptive, and has led to things such as edit warring and a general lack of good faith on tennis articles. What I hope for in this RfC is for you to acknowledge that there is a problem, that you're at least involved, and that you want to amicably resolve it. I believe that's the only way WP:TENNIS is going to move forward as most if not all of the primary parties here are heavily involved in that WikiProject. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow me to continue with the analogy: Tennis expert appears to have been happy dancing on his own for too long, so much so that when the dancefloor filled up, he finds himself still doing the tango alone while other dancers switched to the trot (of the fox or some other animal). Ohconfucius (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to request that Tennis expert please reply to my last post in this thread; that is, the post of the 29th of April. I believe there are some important points that are central to this RfC which Tennis expert needs to address before we can move forwards. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on maintenance tags
In the RfC, I mentioned tagging policy. Tennis Expert has responded. For ease of reading, I have copied the conversation here. OP: ''1/ In the Serena Williams article, TE has removed warning tags before a discussion has resolved the relevant issue. Removing warning tags without consensus is against Wpolicy: placing warning tags without consensus is NOT against Wpolicy. This might seem unfair, but I note that the fansite tag says "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience." (My bolding for emphasis). It is, if you like, a suggestion, not a conviction. It alerts the reader to a possible problem, while (ideally) a discussion takes place about whether the article needs to be changed and what changes should be made, and should normally stay up until the matter is resolved.'' TE: (8) In response to Ordinary Person, tags can be edited or deleted just like any other edit. This might be a matter of differing interpretation, but my reading of TAGGING makes me think that the favoured approach is to leave the tags until the matter is resolved through discussion and consensus. Tag->discuss->resolve->(fix if necessary)->untag. The relevant section is presented below:  Removing tags  ''Any editor who sees a tag, but does not see any problem with the article, and who does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. It may be wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal. It is often the case that even after the initial problem causing the tag is fixed, a tag may accidentally have been left in place. Or perhaps the person leaving the tag simply made a bad judgment call.'' ''If an argument on the talk page has been made as to the reason for the tag, but someone still feels that the tag is inappropriate, they should explain their reasoning on the talkpage. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement, then normal talkpage discussion should proceed, per consensus-building.'' Ordinary Person (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a very good reason why WP:UWT has through ; deleting article maintenance templates without addressing the problem (especially when there's a talk page discussion commencing) is disruptive, and would be blockable if continued after a level 4 warning to stop doing so. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can literally say I learn something new here everday at Wikipedia! I'll definitely make sure to use those from now on. Very practical. Alonsornunez  Comments  14:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, keep WP:DTTR in mind; a lot of people get pissed off when you use user warning templates on them. But then again WP:TTR is another school of thought on the matter. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User warning templates are a different kettle of fish from article maintenance templates, though. They really _are_ about the person. I would probably never use a UWT. If I think the person is a genuine contributor, I'd post a message on their User talk page telling them I think there's a problem with their editing: a scarlet letter is probably not going to aid dialogue. If on the other hand I think the person is a fair dinkum vandal, I'll report them and leave it at that.Ordinary Person (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what I meant by referencing the tdel series of user warning templates was that their existence speaks of (at least) a generally accepted convention that the removal of article maintenance templates without resolving the underlying problem is considered disruptive. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks. Ordinary Person (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

On fundamental fairness
In his April 1 addition to his response, Tennis Expert raises a question on fairness: "*(11) HJensen made five reversions to the Serena Williams article in a 4-hour period. Where's the RFC or the outrage about his behavior? Where is Mendaliv's lobbying for an RFC to be filed on him?  Where is the due process or natural justice, i.e., fundamental fairness?  It's certainly not coming from Mendaliv or administrator EdJohnston."

I think the answer rests somewhere deep in human behavior. As I have stated, one of these "reversions" I made was a simple correction of an unintentional mistake made by Tennis Expert (he put in a factual wrong headline for a section). Making such mistakes happens all the time. Everybody does it. The normal response would be a "whoops", "sorry", "my bad" or perhaps no response. In exither case, nobody would come after you for making such an un intentional mistake. But I think that when one not only refrains from addressing the mistake, but indeed uses it in a formal case against the editor who corrected the mistake, then one is probably not appealing to other editors' sense for fairness. I think that being treated fair is something that you earn through your interaction with other humans. And since there, so far, has been no outrage over my five edits, it may be because they haven't been considered unfair, where as Tennis Experts "legal actions" are actually been considered vindicative and thereby quite unfair. Going by the "letters of the law" at all time (i.e., continuously finding some policy that can support an accusation), and nothing else, may not foster a desire of others to be treated fair. Fairness is, as I see it, a concept that thrives among people who respect each other. --HJensen, talk 08:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT on Tennis expert's part, yet again. In #9 alone he's managed to completely miss the salient points of my April 27 reply. Point #10 is yet again a trashing of The Rambling Man, yet this time not from the arbitration evidence- which impresses me to an extent, though only to the point of disgust. #11, again he ignores the salient points of my April 27 reply above. #12, he's right that Ohconfucius' comment wasn't that appropriate; it seems primarily intended to dig at TE, and in that respect it Ohconfucius probably shouldn't have made it.
 * Tennis expert asks where the fairness is? It'll come. Just as it's coming now for Alan16, who was bullied out of editing Andy Murray. But my lobbying for an RfC? It's certainly not called for, and in suggesting that I should be doing so, Tennis expert has shown a clear misunderstanding of the purpose and procedures involved in the user conduct RfC process.
 * And on that note, I'd like to go ahead and remind everyone that this RfC will produce no binding result on its own. No matter what happens, if no agreement can be reached and sustained, this RfC will simply close. Tennis expert's current demeanor suggests that's what'll happen. He's continuing to fight on behavioral and procedural points for the RfC itself, rather than discussing the points which brought it. This is his typical derailment "move".
 * Here's my thought at this point. There's consensus to chop down the Serena Williams article and bring it to FA status. Do so and do what it takes to keep that article in line with that consensus until it changes (which it will). If Tennis expert edit wars, report him immediately. But don't revert good edits.
 * Furthermore, I encourage those editors to discuss with Tennis expert on the article talk page, but warn them to cease discussion and ignore him from the moment he brings behavior into the dispute. While I don't intend to call Tennis expert a troll, the principles of DFTT apply here; do not feed Tennis expert's behavioral dispute arguments. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my self-centredness, I have been behaving as if I'm the only person who's life was made hell by Tennis expert. I do sincerely beg the forgiveness of all presently assembled. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect to my "silence" (which, after all, is golden, and a good alternative when one has nothing nice to say, and in light of the current WP:IDHT exhibition), I abjectly refused to be bullied by Tennis expert in the way he bullied and used age to discriminate against User:Alan16. Now that was shocking behaviour.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume that the figures in the username Alan16 are indicative of his age, and would remark an impressive standard and maturity of communication which appears greater than the figures would suggest. Alan16 also demonstrates an admirable strength of character in refusing to be bullied. Good on you,lad! Ohconfucius (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should remark that when I suggested to "do what it takes" to keep the article in line with consensus, what I meant was to do so while keeping strictly in line with all applicable editing policies and guidelines. Don't edit war, don't break 3RR, don't do anything to make it look like you're tag-teaming (as maintaining consensus is by definition not tag-teaming), try to remain civil, and when necessary escalate the problem via the appropriate dispute resolution channels. I'm saying this because I became worried that what I said above could be misinterpreted as a call to arms- it wasn't intended as such and given how the situation here frequently seems to hinge on verbiage instead of intended meaning, this should stand as a reminder to us all that we should endeavor to use clear, unambiguous language. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

IP 75.63.7.15
Appears to have an overlap of 32 articles with Tennis expert. Which is interesting since that IP basically has a maximum of 32 articles to intersect with Tennis expert on. The pattern of reversions and edits, moreover, coincides with Tennis expert as nearly as I can find. Collect (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is a Sockpuppet of Kolizor, Tennis expert is sure to have reverted it. I wonder if that happened? Ohconfucius (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Passes the WP:DUCK test, clearly. This IP is Tennis expert editing anonymously. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot be serious. Would he write an edit summary like this or remove contents from "his" talk page like this, or explain the BRD policy like this? Maybe someone should add this as evidence of further "highly disruptive, incivil and damaging edits by the sockpuppet of Tennis expert"? :-) HJensen, talk 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a cursory glance shows very similar editing times, articles, and points-of-view. Well, this just gets better and better. And I was still trying to come to grips with this debacle. (What was that TE about the way in which "the date delinkers have misbehaved through this whole ordeal"?)  HWV258  03:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is clearly Tennis expert, but is it a case of IP editing to avoid scrutiny, or something simple like forgetting to log in? The edits are all in a burst in December. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just had a look through some contribs to get some idea of context. Tennis expert put a "retired" template on his user page on 19 November, and that account edited only pages outside mainspace (Talk:, Wikipedia: etc) until "unretiring" on 17 December. The IP first edited on 3 December, and made only mainspace contributions until 17 December, when a disagreement over Billie Jean King and Navratilova happened and talk page use became unavoidable. The IP edits stopped later that day when TE unretired. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this explain the revolving-door retirements? In-again, out-again? Tony   (talk)  09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * or the Hokey Cokey? ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 
 * Oh yes, I'm always forgetting to log in and therefore having to redo my posts when I see that my user name doesn't appear in replacement of ~.
 *   HWV258  03:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Said IP posted warnings on my talk page -- and removed my reply on its talk page, so there is no reason to believe that any "accidental non log-in" was an issue. Whoever used that IP dang well knew he was using the IP and leaving warnings with it. What is the precendent for a "retired" person doing such? Collect (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing makes me grind my teeth. It walks and quacks like a duck, but I'm reluctant to suggest doing anything about it at this time because it seems to have happened nearly six months ago. That said, I don't think it's inappropriate to discuss this as a possible problem, but it's tough to call it sockpuppetry unless it appears to have been done to deliberately avoid scrutiny by not editing using the Tennis expert account. What likely happened is TE marked the account retired, and may have intended to do so, but decided that he'd stick around and do editing on a different level. I wouldn't call that sockpuppetry or abuse of anonymous editing privileges. It's a little weird to be sure, but it's certainly not the worst thing.
 * To be clear, however, if there's reason to suspect Tennis expert of sockpuppetry (being sure it clearly would be sockpuppetry if true), a SPI case may be appropriate if it's recent enough (this particular case, if it did appear to be abusive sockpuppetry, would be too old for checkuser, though WP:DUCK might apply). &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to emphazise that my mention of sockpuppetry above was meant humorous. It is not like he has evaded anything, except for his own retirement. So I think it is just amusing and puts him in a slight comical light (even though his "retirement" in itself of course was the expected pure drama, and ended to no surprise). He may have used the IP to confront User:Collect in an inappropriate manner, but the editing pattern is so obviously revealing, that I would not think one should make a big issue of it. --HJensen, talk 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the IP address user is the same as TE (as now seems obvious), then the edits here were clearly designed to appear as if opinion was coming from more than one source. I don't find that "amusing" or "comical" in any way, shape, or form.  HWV258  22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right HWV; that is very fishy. However, I don't think there was an overt and blatant move to pretend like the IP was someone else. I mean, really, someone noted it in the same discussion within 15 hours of the IP's first comment. I don't think it's worth doing anything about it at this point. If it had been a throwaway account, or if more IPs started showing up... then fine it might be worth doing something now. But it has been nearly six months. If you want to give a view on the main RfC which also mentions this, you can probably go ahead and do so. I just think with this we're not going to get anywhere, and TE is naturally not going to respond to this. The whole point of an RfC/U is to try and help resolve a problematic editor's behavior because his or her good contributions are valuable to the community, and if all it does is show that a particular editor or group of editors are incapable of following the community's standards, then more drastic actions may be taken. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with much of the above. I agree it was almost certainly a way for Tennis expert to ease himself into the humiliating climbdown following his melodramatic exit from the scene, than any attempt to evade scrutiny per se. His silence is quite telling. I have no particular issue with it, but I treasure this quiet moment he has so kindly given us. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty obvious on the evidence that this IP was indeed Tennis expert - however, I agree that, while using this IP was probably technically against WP's rules, it was not a way of trying to avoid scrutiny and was pretty legitimate.
 * However, I do feel it is worth pointing out that it not being maliciously-intended would not stop Tennis expert himself from trying to exploit such an action to his advantage. I know this from experience - last year, after I had been pretty abusive on the Sharapova article earlier in the year, I took a break of several months and came back under a new name (a legitimate clean start). This is permitted in the Wikipedia spirit, but Tennis expert resorted to any methods of stopping someone challenging his mythical "consensus", and tried to have me banned on accusations of sockpuppetry (despite the fact I was never using more than one account at any one time). There were similar situations in separate disputes regarding the Nadal article and a laughably pathetic dispute over whether the major Florida tournament should be referred to as "Miami" or "Key Biscayne".
 * Hopefully though, you guys will lead by example and instead stick to taking Tennis expert to task on the actual issues that matter, rather than resorting to his pathetic methods of exploiting obscure loopholes and technicalities to win a dispute. 92.0.235.202 (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert and Rambling Man's request for de-crat
As some of you may already know, The Rambling Man requested to have his bureaucrat status removed yesterday (Bureaucrats' noticeboard). Admittedly, I have my own opinions on this, but I don't want to discuss the de-crat itself. What I want to discuss is Tennis expert's response, attached behavior, and why both are symptoms of the problems we've been discussing for nearly 2 weeks now.


 * 1) Tennis expert responded to the above WP:BN thread with his typical statement expressing his belief that The Rambling Man's actions in the date delinking situation somehow reflect on his statuses as administrator and bureaucrat (diff).
 * 2) This statement is reverted very quickly by Ryan Postlethwaite (diff), who then leaves a warning identifying that statement as trolling (diff).
 * 3) Tennis expert reverts the statement (as is his modus operandi and choice when it comes to his own user talk page) with a response in the edit summary (diff). I would argue this method of response is a symptom of a greater incivility problem, and while Tennis expert is acting within policy in doing so, it is still a problem.
 * 4) A brief discussion ensued between Tennis expert and Jayvdb on Tennis expert's user talk page, where Tennis expert made a point to comment about not understanding what Jayvdb meant in regards to a recommendation to "back off" (apparently WP:DISENGAGE). When Jayvdb responded to explain what he meant, Tennis expert reverted the explanation only, leaving the discussion apparently with him having the last word (diff). This is very problematic; while it's possibly in line with policy, it's borderline at best as it involves refactoring another user's comments in such a way that it can completely refocus the discussion.

The problem, in my view, stems from a refusal or general unwillingness to disengage from a situation or at least stop using unacceptable dispute resolution methods (e.g., edit warring under the guise of WP:BRD).

But, what the hell is going to happen here? Tennis expert hasn't even acknowledged that there's a problem with his behavior, and it seems extremely unlikely that it will happen. An RfC cannot do anything without the agreement of all affected parties. All that has happened as far as tennis articles are concerned is Tennis expert has stopped editing Serena Williams. But that's just treating the symptom; what of the cause? Can we actually help Tennis expert resolve his collaboration issues? Because if we can't do that, I don't see this RfC as having any effect whatsoever, and genuinely believe that Tennis expert's behavior will result in an eventual topic ban and/or incivility blocks. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In view of Tennis expert's problematic behaviour continuing unabated, and the unlikely success of this RfC per above, would it not be an idea to stop this forthwith, and take it to Arbcom? Ohconfucius (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't want it to go there for a few reasons. For one, I still have hope that Tennis expert will come to his senses and understand why, even if he's correct with regards to content, his behavior is unacceptable. Furthermore, in referring this case to ArbCom, the statement "there is a pending request for arbitration on this dispute" will result in limited at best administrative response if Tennis expert's behavior is deemed to require anything beyond obviously-merited sanctions (e.g., 3RR). Then there's Tennis expert's actions in dealing with an ArbCom case to which he is only tangentially related; goodness knows how long, drawn out and painful he can and will make it. And, finally I suspect that a long and drawn out ArbCom case may be unnecessary to resolving this problem; if it's determined here the appropriate course is to request a formalized topic ban or similar for Tennis expert, a ban discussion at WP:AN would be all that's necessary. I will admit, however, that my reluctance to go to ArbCom is at least partly engendered by my lack of experience in that venue. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had understood you to speculate that RfC would be ineffectual, hence my suggestion. If however, you believe this RfC could lead to formalised request for a topic ban, then obviously escalating to Arbcom may not be appropriate nor necessary. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should explain myself: I don't really consider a topic ban or resolution to move to a ban discussion a good solution. What I'm hopeful for is a discussion of editing behavior which leads to Tennis expert taking appropriate corrective steps. But I digress; Tennis expert hasn't participated here since the first of the month, but has continued to engage in the same problematic behavior that brought this RfC to bear. I've said my piece, as have many others, and Tennis expert has in each instance refused to acknowledge the problem. What should we do now? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. I think the assembled opinions on him in this RfC are pretty much spot on now, and the RfC has now identified the main traits of his tendentious modus operandi. If we go to Arbcom, Tennis expert will probably be able to exploit this to his advantage. As the defendent, he is sure to exploit the unclear and unwieldy Arbcom process to draw it out into a prolonged and damaging conflict for all. Unfortunately, we have seen the obsessive zeal with which he documents his favourite tennis players' careers; as he still appears to be in complete denial of his own shortcomings, this will translate into an exhaustive dossier of the faults of each and every one of his 'opponents', for presenting to Arbcom (Hell, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he takes a diff of this post as another example of my "incivility" towards him for the dates case). As nobody is perfect, and his provocations/accusations are very good at creating stress and anxiety for his 'antagonists', it will turn the case into another blowout RFAR. Some of his mud will eventually stick, and everyone will look bad in the process - The Rambling Man is a case in point. Our WP:ANI does not have the summary powers as some of our sister wikis in other languages, so is there really anywhere else to go? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is an issue, however I think the best approach is to either wait for the case to conclude, or take this up on the RFCu. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's worthwhile to summarize all that's happened since the RfC/U opened in an addendum view? I'm not familiar with how appropriate this is in the RfC/U process however. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Locke Cole's statement
I really take issue with some of the things Locke Cole said in that statement. While, yes, there are quite a few of the people mentioned in TE's arbitration evidence involved here, I certainly am not, and I don't believe Alonso is either- both of us having been the certifying parties of this dispute. While being an outsider I'm not really able to gauge whether those involved persons genuinely are acting in good faith, I've generally assumed so throughout, and not seen any reason to believe otherwise. I'll also say that I've done my damnedest to keep this RfC about correcting behavior rather than simply preventing disruption. While I personally have lost hope at times, I do not believe this RfC is or has ever been about "getting" anybody.

But of course, Locke Cole is entitled to his opinion. But in any case I would strongly suggest that he look over the dispute which brought this RfC rather than assuming it has to do with the ArbCom case. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, look at what is mentioned here—this should give a good idea. Surely, it could look suspicious that many from the Arbcom delinking case show up here in oppposition to Tennis expert, but The Rambling Man and myself has been interested in tennis long before the delinking case. Also, Alonso and Mendaliv have had nothing to do with the delinking case. If one, nevertheless, is going to discount a few of the "votes" against him due to the delinking issue, I think one should add all the voices of the potential tennis editors he has bullied off during the past couple of years with his "read-WP:CONSENSUS-WP:BRD-WP:CIVIL-and-then-agree-with-what-I-do" rhetorics. There are some votes there that will never be counted.--HJensen, talk 21:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. Take User:Alan16 who was bullied away from the Andy Murray article by Tennis expert, with Tennis expert citing Alan as a "child" and "underage" and "unexperienced" despite the fact, at the time, Alan had made over 70 edits to the Murray page.  Tennis expert then went on to totally browbeat this editor who he had already acknowledged as "unexperienced" and wikilawyered this "underage" editor into a corner, finishing him off with "You'd rather be a disruptive editor. OK. I understand you now and will act accordingly."  And then goes onto to cry "bad faith" from just about every other editor he encounters.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This tactic is now well documented. The fastest way to close a case is by discrediting the witness/opponent. In the case of our subject, he habitually throws about claims of disruption/vandalism/blind reverts to justify undoing someone else's edits. In the case of Alan16, the smear is the implication that the person's age fails not qualify him to have a valid opinion about [the quality of] an article. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what's being said here. If Locke Cole was perhaps including my statement on the page in his assessment i.e. bringing up specific past disputes I've had with TE - you can class that as me trying to "get Tennis expert" if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that those disputes are, I feel, extremely relevant to the current situation regarding him, and that his actions are severely reducing the potential of the tennis articles.
 * Of course, I personally am not expecting anything to come of this request for comment on his conduct. I and many others have flagged up his abuse of the Wikipedia spirit countless times over the years, and he manages to get out of reprimanding by the most weaselly of methods everytime. In the end, it just becomes easier to give up; battling Tennis expert takes up so much emotional energy, which most people prefer to devote to areas of their life outside of WP, which Tennis expert apparently cannot say for himself. A real shame. 92.0.235.202 (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the specific editors involved in the Date delinking arbitration are all very well coordinated and like to engage in attacks as a group. It's unsurprising then that you'd find the likes of agreeing with, , etc. These editors have a specific problem with TE outside of this dispute and objective editors need to be aware of this inherent bias. I make no statement regarding those who are genuinely involved in this dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that statement, Locke. While I still disagree that the date delinking editors are engaged in any sort of group attacks on Tennis expert, I absolutely agree that we should have more eyes on this case. Would you care to make a recommendation on what further steps to take in that vein? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree we should seek more outside comment. The more the better.  It's also worth noting that Locke is one of only two editors supporting TE's actions in this RFC, and Locke himself has been heavily engaged in the date delinking discussion.  I count at least 17 named editors contributing here, and I don't think a "large majority" of them have been involved in the arbitration case. - perhaps it's worth bringing their attention to the other views presented to see if they agree with the more recent sections added?    The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said all of the editors supporting this RFC were involved in the Date delinking debacle, but I would say a large majority of them are. This doesn't negate your opinion, but it does bear mentioning for editors who might think everyone supporting this RFC is genuinely involved (and not just trying to pick another fight). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know; I didn't mean to imply that you said that all supporters were from the date delinking "thing". I just wanted to emphasize that "If one, nevertheless, is going to discount a few of the "votes" against him due to the delinking issue, I think one should add all the voices of the potential tennis editors he has bullied off during the past couple of years with his "read-WP:CONSENSUS-WP:BRD-WP:CIVIL-and-then-agree-with-what-I-do" rhetorics. There are some votes there that will never be counted". Honestly, I believe that the last group is larger than the first.--HJensen, talk 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're making another mistake: this isn't a vote, this is a discussion to see what people think of the situation. This isn't Survivor, we're not voting anyone off the island... —Locke Cole • t • c 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * a) Please clarify "another"; I would like an opportunity to correct, and I am bad at quizzes b) By "vote" I was using the word as a metaphor; sorry if it complicated matters (I tried, however, to signal my intentions by putting the word in quotation marks at first appearance). So, in order to avoid further misundertandings, I will rephrase the sentence "There are some votes there that will never be counted" to "There are many editors who are against Tennis expert's behavior, whose opinions we don't hear as they have been scared off the whole project". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJensen (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 May 2009


 * At this point, it appears the editors who have had absolutely nothing to do with delinking stuff appear to be of one opinion. And the proposal is not at all Draconian, to be sure.  I daresay that asking any editor to be civil is not an unwarranted request?   Collect (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That would definitely be a good start. However, there are more problems than that, specifically: ownership and bad-faith accusations of disruption, bad faith from others, and sockpuppetry. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be more precise on the numbers:
 * Arbitration-involved contributors to this RFCu (11): The Rambling Man, HJensen, Ohconfucius, Dabomb87, HWV258, Tony1, Locke Cole, Goodmorningworld, Greg L, Jayvdb (arbitrator), myself.
 * Arbitration-free contributors to this RFCu (10): Orangemike (fairly neutral opinions), Philip Graves (supportive of myself), Armchair info guy, MC10, Alonsornunez (filed this RFC with the support and encouragement of The Rambling Man and Mendaliv), Collect, Mendaliv (not unbiased as he repeatedly encouraged Alfonsornunez to file this RFC), Oldepaso, Musiclover565 (long term problematic sockpuppeteer and disruptive editor of tennis articles), Ordinary Person (neutral). Tennis expert (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please provide some evidence that those numbers have any impact on the validity of the complaints that have been made in this RfC? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I be counted in the 11? How is "arbitration-involved" defined? (A question posed in the realisation that of course the numbers have no validity.)  HWV258  01:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE
Tennis expert writes "WP:Summary style does not authorize or encourage the permanent deletion of information". Quite so. However, as an obligation to our GFDL licencing, we have a History tab on each article so that contributions can be attributed correctly and hence, unless revisions are deleted by oversighters, or entire articles are deleted by administrators, then the general Wikipedian can access all of the information that ever existed at any point within the article's history. Hence there is no such "permanent deletion of information".

It's very simple to provide a permanent link to a version of an article, as two of us attempted to do with the Sharapova career history fork. I think I'm correct in saying that GFDL attribution of these forks is very important, but then I'm not a lawyer, wiki- or otherwise. If editors are worried about missing information, it is possible to leave a permanent link to the version of the article they advocate on the talk page. This is preferable to creating multiple sandbox articles which replicate versions stored within the article's history.

While concerns over WP:PRESERVE are valid, claims of permanent deletion of information should be handled with care. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat what I said above. --HJensen, talk 14:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If The Rambling Man's interpretation were correct, then this editing guideline would be pointless: "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information.  Tennis expert (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I have a cousin who kept all the newspapers he ever bought. You can imagine what his house is like. Perhaps that could be an interpretation of the policy, or maybe somebody will retort with "Wikipedia is not paper"? Ohconfucius (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't we been here before? But in any case, from WP:PRESERVE: "If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve content you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change" (emphasis mine). Might compliance with that suggestion satisfy both parties? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So the key is "content you think might have some discussion value" and I guess this in partial opposition to the information described in the fancruft tag which says "Please relocate any relevant information, and remove excessive trivia...". I suppose that the editors removing text from, say, Serena Williams, may consider the text they are removing to either have no "discussion value" or be "excessive trivia".  As an aside, can a GFDL-savvy editor confirm that an unattributed copy-and-paste of content removed from an article but added to its talkpage poses no problem?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My thought as to how this should be applied to fancruft, and whether it conflicts with any guidelines, is that it's not a common occurrence that you find something that's blatant fancruft; more often than not, someone will think the content is somewhat useful. I'd recommend this when doing such a copy-paste:
 * Paste the content to the talk page, including the current revision ID before your signature (i.e., with the content to be removed still present)
 * Remove the content from the article
 * Discuss
 * If there's consensus to re-add such content, note that it's being reintroduced
 * If all that's necessary is a simple undo, then do that and maintain the edit summary which includes the revision ID being reverted
 * If the readdition is too far down the line to be simply undone, include the revision ID where the talk page discussion concluded, and if provided the revision ID immediately prior to the content's removal (should have been provided on the talk page)
 * How does that sound? Though the last part might be unnecessary since the history of the article itself is never broken. IANAL of course. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound unreasonable, but couldn't step 2 simply be reverted by WP:BRD? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure could! This might be one of those places where policy (i.e., WP:PRESERVE) trumps less-accepted pages (i.e., WP:BRD). &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI for involved parties
Earlier today Tennis expert requested speedy deletion of his talk page citing right to vanish, which renders this RFC redundant unless TE decides to return. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest it is closed and archived. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. We should assume that his invocation of WP:RTV is a sincere one. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to speculate much on this, but when it is only the talk page that is deleted, does that not mean that he is in principle still active? In WP:RTV it is mentioned that user pages as such should be deleted.--HJensen, talk 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, give it a bit. TE was apparently hit with an autoblock which kept him from tagging his userspace things with, which he appears to be doing now. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be closed immediately. It's inappropriate to discuss the behaviour of a user not around to defend themselves. --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree to close, subject to reinstatement should Tennis exercise his 'right to reappear'. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thus archived. Thank you all for your participation in this RfC/U. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of this page
Please note:
 * Blanking of this page and subsequent unblanking of this page.
 * Discussion about this issue at.
 * Discussion about this issue at.