Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Stilltim
Sorry this is my first RfC, so if I screw it up, let me know. Gigs (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Response Discussion
edit(Moved from RFC)
- This user's wholesale changes required consensus, so I reverted the user's changes in anticipation of a discussion. That article, 23rd United States Congress, has a talk page which would be a starting place for that discussion. There is a well-established Wikiproject which would have been a great forum. Instead, the user chose to make radical changes to the page. The user is not persecuted; the user would be better served with a user-owned encyclopedia, not a publicly-managed project like this one.—Markles 19:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have read your responses to the request for comment above, and I'm sorry you still do not seem to be getting the picture of why our recent actions are of concern. I have stated many times that I do not question your expertise or knowledge in the area of congressional history. Your contributions of content are unparalled. However, you cannot control format of that information once you submit it to Wikipedia. That is the crux of the argument here. The bottom of every edit page states "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You cannot control how your content is displayed once it is submitted. This is public effort and anyone can change it, often in ways you disagree with. Yes, you started fleshing out all of the congress articles years ago and put in a lot of work. You are to be commended. But articles evolve. Efforts were made at WP:USC to improve the format of the ordinal congresses through consensus, and those changes went forward. While Wikipedia policy discourages article forks, no one really seemed to argue or question your foks about the state delegations, political parties, or membership changes until you started unilaterally creating your summary forks for no other reason than because you disliked the new format of the main article. You opened yourself up to this criticism by trying to assert ownership of articles.
- You may disgree with the format that has been decided upon for the congress articles, but consensus drives Wikipedia. If you have suggestions on ways to incorporate your format ideas into the subject, you can do so. Rather than creating wholesale copies of the articles in your preferred format, you should have developed them in your User Space, and then taken the proposal to the Congress Project for consensus. However, if your only solution is to insist that your original format, 4-article system, is the only format you will accept, then you are not negotiating in good faith, which serves to undermine the project and the encyclopedia. There simply has to be a way to provide an "attractive and accurate presentation" of the information, as you say, and still do it in one article. I think that is possible. We are not out to get you. We simply want what you want, a robust, accurate encyclopedia. However, accuracy applies only to the underlying information, and does not extend to the minutae in how that information is presented. I would urge you not to "give up your efforts" and contributions, as you are a valuable source of information that we would miss. However, we do ask that you respect the group nature of the encyclopedia and accept that other editors will alter articles in ways you do not like, rather than continuing your current my-way-is-the-right-way-and-the-only-way attitude.DCmacnut<> 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
New development
editStilltim has posted this on my talk page:
I have reluctantly accepted your point 100% and combined the data into the one main article. It still receives the stiff arm. stilltim (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
-- Gigs (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I saw his attempt at 23rd United States Congress. It's a step in the right direction, other than he still seems to object to the use of the infobox. Not sure his immediate solution to copy the articles whole cloth into the main article is the right one, rather than trying to find a concise concise, single presentation of the information. I've recommended that he come up with a solution in his user space rather than in the main articles. His goal, I think, is to retain a modicum of control, by insisting on presenting the information in multiple formats, but now in the same article. I think a sortable table would provide that customization, but implementing one would not be a perfect solution, given the way we present vacancies and successors to individual seats. I may start playing around with one in my user space. I get his point about ease of use, and thing sorting may have merit. But to have the same information duplicated, whether across multiple articles or one, doesn't seem to be the most "attractive and accurate presention" that he says he wants.DCmacnut<> 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- He seems to have completely missed the point here. Multiple presentations are not acceptable, and I applaud your attempts to try and reason with the man. I've done some work with sortable tables in my many FLs, so if you need help/comments/a new set of eyes, give me a poke. Ironholds (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Changes that would affect the format of the 112 ordinal congress articles ought to be discussed first at WP:Wikiproject U.S. Congress.—Markles
- No doubt. I'm just testing a few concepts of my own at User:Dcmacnut/23rd Congress to see if anything makes sense. I'd take it to the project before doing anything else with it.DCmacnut<> 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Changes that would affect the format of the 112 ordinal congress articles ought to be discussed first at WP:Wikiproject U.S. Congress.—Markles
Still doing it
editI note that Stilltim is still creating these damned articles. I've left him a warning with a very clear message - keep creating pages counter to consensus and I will get an uninvolved admin in to block him. I thought you lot should probably know. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You probably already know this, but the closing admin on one of the AfDs said that all future article creations can be speedy'ed under G4. Gigs (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, but that requires finding an admin, explaining it, etc etc. I'll do that now anyhoo. Ironholds (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm an admin, but I'm involved in this case, albeit peripherally, so I can't help here.—Markles 22:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, but that requires finding an admin, explaining it, etc etc. I'll do that now anyhoo. Ironholds (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
My feelings
editI strongly object to the comments and attitude just about nearly all of you are taking to my effort to create good material. I have said and done nothing unprofessional or inappropriate and have endured insults and constant criticism no matter what I do. It is perfectly simple for anyone to see that my version is cleaner and better organized than just about any...and they certainly are the only ones consistent with each other as they should be. "Ironholds's" threats are simply childish and unprofessional. And when I restrain myself from putting out comments critical of the "editors" I am accused of not communicating.
I built the articles for the first half of the congresses a year ago and they have inconsistently degenerated since then. They are now generally a mess. Yet I am charged with creating "damned articles." All of you say something different about the design of the articles, and no one (except me) has made the effort to build more than a dozen or so consistent articles.
I will build a few articles as samples in space documented here as suggested by "Dcmacnut," and what I understand to be your collective preference. I am not trying to dictate the design of the article and spent a year negotiation the latest consistent design with "Markles" a year or two ago. I'm happy to continue the development of the design, but NONE of the comments of Ironhold and others say anything to content, or agree with each other's comments. They simply state that any design I submit is wrong and needs some review by some group of some agenda. To calling my work "damned articles" and threaten me with a warning of blocking is unbelievable.
I'm still not sure I understand where to post the "sample" but will note that here when it is done. stilltim (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- See User:Stilltim/drafts - 21 for a display of my proposal. stilltim (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- See User:Stilltim/drafts - 22 for another display. stilltim (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The article is a start, and the most appropriate place to test new formats. I still think some of it is overly redundant, but that's not for me to decide. As Ironholds says below, consensus will dictate. I remember full well the debate you and Markles had over 2 years ago on content and format. The thing is that formats, and consensus, can change over time. I still think that your view that "your articles" were "messed up" by other editors, and our mass creation of new articles that fit your ideal, is the main reason you were brought before this RFC. It's not a personal agenda, and it's true that editors can sometimes get hot headed. We always try to assume good faith, but statement that "it is perfectly simple for anyone to see that [your] version is cleaner and better organized than just about any...and they certainly are the only ones consistent with each other as they should be." Again, these aren't "your articles" and yours isn't the only viewpoint out there. I hope we can work to reach consensus to address your concerns, but you need to accept that even if we decide on an updated style, there's nothing to say it won't change somewhere down the road again. These articles are fluid. Nothing is set in stone, either your vision or the current versions.
- I've made some comments about your draft on your talk page. Again, it's a start, but it lacks some elements and content errors I think should be addressed.DCmacnut<> 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- You have created over 200 completely useless pages. We do not create pages simply to end editing disputes - Wikipedia is governed by consensus between parties. Your problems with the layout of articles should be discussed with other editors of the articles in question, not resolved by creating new articles set up in a way you like. We have repeatedly tried to explain this to you, with no impact - even after an AfD closed, giving community consensus that these articles were not useful, you continued to create more. Wikipedia is a fast-moving place, and consensus can be renegotiated. If the discussions were two years ago, it is probably best to go back and get a fresher view.
- My "threats" have been a legitimate response to your refusal to bow to consensus. I gave you every opportunity, suggesting that you work one article up to spec first and telling you that articles should not be created simply to resolve disputes, and still you persisted in generating these useless pages. Your designs do need the approval of a group - not a group with an "agenda", just the group of editors who edit those articles in particular (see my point about WP:CONSENSUS above). You articles are consistent, yes, because they contain no input from the rest of the community. You cannot create content forks to set up an article as you like it, and the community opinion on this has been that this is an inappropriate setup. If you cannot learn to work with other users, this isn't the place for you. Ironholds (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I take great exception to the suggestion, Stilltim, that you have explained anything other than that you feel your version is best and that you feel Markles is impeding you. You have not explained in any central ___location, including the several AfDs, what your vision is. The only differences that are obvious are that you have a dislike for infoboxes, which is inexplicable on Wikipedia, and that you prefer three columns to two. How about some specifics, with explanations, in a central ___location such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Layout of the ordinal Congress articles. -Rrius (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Your articles are great; making 200 pages to avoid a "Wiki war" is not. You need to work with others to try and implement the format you think best into the original articles.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)