User talk:Scott MacDonald: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
rationale |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
My name is Scott MacDonald (well, maybe) and I am a recovering Wikipediholic. For the sake of my work, family, and sanity, I have given up this unhealthy addiction to a project of questionable ethics - and no desire to fix them. |
My name is Scott MacDonald (well, maybe) and I am a recovering Wikipediholic. For the sake of my work, family, and sanity, I have mainly given up this unhealthy addiction to a project of questionable ethics - and no desire to fix them. |
||
Will I be back? I don't know. I hope not. Messages may be left here, and will be read periodically. However, I am unlikely to respond to project-related messages. |
Will I be back to full editing? I don't know. I hope not. Messages may be left here, and will be read periodically. However, I am unlikely to respond to most project-related messages. |
||
--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 14:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 14:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Deletion== |
==Deletion of BLPs== |
||
Instead of deleting an obviously notable article, why not simply find a source for it? It is a waste of energy to have to recreate an article simply because someone didn't want to do a simple google search for a source.--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|TM]] 23:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Feel free to source the unreferenced BLPs - there are tens of thousands of them, though.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==My hero== |
|||
That's all i got.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 23:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
'''Rationale.''' |
|||
== Jolly good! == |
|||
Together with a number of other administrators, I am deleting [[WP:BLP|biographies of living people]] which have been unsourced for considerable lengths of time, and have not improved. Currently, my deletion have been of articles unsourced for over three years. |
|||
Glad to see you back in action (if only briefly, as I suspect). Your recent administrative work is superb. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I am doing this because it is the right thing to do, and is consistent with the BLP polcy that unacceptable unsourced material should be removed from this project. This has nothing to do with the notability or otherwise of the article. Deletion is, naturaly, a last resort. It would be better if these articles were fixed. However, three years of tagging and waiting and improvement has not happened. Three years of discussion and the community has put in place no other realistic remedy. Thus it is time for the last resort. I encourage other administrators to follow this lead - as I am following those who began this. |
|||
== Stop == |
|||
Mass deletions in the face of a current debate about mass deletions, which is presently "no consensus" at best, is clearly disruptive. There is zero justification for proceeding with mass deletion now ''whilst that debate is progress''. |
|||
Of course, removing unsourced BLPs does not solve the BLP problem, but it is a start. |
|||
If you absolutely want to, set a deadline a couple of weeks' hence where you'll resume unilateral action if no serious process for dealing with unsourced BLPs has materialised. Until then, please stop. Or I will have to block you, and someone on the other side will unblock you, and what will that achieve? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
'''Objections''' |
|||
:No progress will be made in two weeks (ses Flagged revisions for obvious example). I have worked on BLPs for over 3 years and no significant progress has been made. These articles have been unreferenced for THREE YEARS and nothing has happened. The community is quite incapable of doing anything ethically responsible here, and thus I decline to enter into pointless debates with those who have oproven to be ethically irrepponsible people. "Community consensus" is something I have learned by bitter experience to hold in utter contempt. The ONLY way to change wikipedia is direct action. If you block me, then that will cause drama and disruption. That's your choice. But drama and disruption is far more likely to do some good here than more waffle with an irrepsponsible community. I give notice that I consider any long-term unreferenced BLP to be fair game for deletion, and I call on all resoponsible admins to join me in this position.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
If you belive an article should be kept, you are at liberty to restore it, providing you properly fix the sourcing issues, and any other BLP issues it may raise. I do not object to undeletion if you take responsibility for this. If you are not an administrator, you can list the article below, note your willingness to fix it, and I, or another admin will restore it.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Usually people try threats before violence... If the problem's been around for 3 years, what difference does two weeks make? The threat of you (and others) doing this would sharpen minds rather a lot. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::PS Flagged revisions is an invalid comparison since it requires tech changes as well as process. Some of the things under discussion at [[WT:PROD]] (like, er, my alternative proposal) can be implemented pretty much immediately if agreed. Threat of having a handful of admins doing mass deletion might (or might not) help agreement be reached as a compromise/lesser evil. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 01:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am through banging my head against walls. From experience I have learned that the community does nothing, or the minimum and never takes the problem seriously. It is time to try other tactics. No, I don't think they'll work either, but forlorn hopeis better than none. If you still belive in community discussion to resolve this, I can only wish you well. But it doesn't work - never has.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 01:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::But the whole point is that you can continue in this course of action in the near future. Deadlines can work wonders, sometimes. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
At least PROD them first Scott. I have just had to restore a notable one and will look at others. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Notability is not my concern. Feel free to restore any you wish to source. I think I've got 60,000 to go.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 01:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think this is the best course, but I see why you're taking it and am not going to try to dissuade you from something you are obviously committed to. This comment is really for folks who show up here to complain. I looked at exactly ''one'' of the articles you deleted, [[Patrick M. Stillman]], completely at random. It contained an extremely severe BLP violation (I won't repeat it here obviously) that had been there for over a month, and which had previously been there for over a month and a half before someone caught it, at which point it was reinstated and then not caught again. This was on the bio of a retired rear admiral in the U.S. coast guard, and the vandal had announced "if you delete what I wrote one-hundred times, I will re-writted [sic] it one-hundred and one times." People who pooh pooh the BLP problem and think we don't need to respond with alacrity (too late) need to be pointed to these kind of examples, and please let me know if you come across more. Honestly the fact that even a few exist (and it's more than that of course) should be sufficient for any ethical person to conclude that drastic measures are needed. I hold on to the hope that this latest discussion can at least lead to a thorough cleanout of the unsourced BLPs (it's more encouraging than most BLP debates, and there are multiple paths we can take that would achieve the goal), but I understand why you've given up on the discussion/consensus track. --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 01:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::And that is why I am generous at semiprotecting BLPs. I have thought of another tack on the smei'ing of all BLPs which I shall propose soon. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Good luck. But it won't happen. You might also see my [[Wikipedia:Targeted Flagging]] proposal.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 01:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ec}} :::I don't really have an opinion on what you are doing, but that might change if I continue to see articles like Stillman deleted. That wasn't the ''worst'' BLP violation (ie he wasn't accused of killing someone), but it certainly wasn't very nice. Kudos. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]] [[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">(talk</font>]] • [[WP:OMT|<font color="800000">majestic titan)]]</font> 01:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Okay, how about this - [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Possible_way_forward_on_BLP_semiprotection_-_proposal]] as something which is using tools we have ''and'' might be acceptable overall. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* Are you aware that your deletions are directly against established Wikipedia community consensus? --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 02:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**I am indifferent to any such moronic consensus.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Unblocked == |
|||
I accidentally blocked you. You should be unblocked now. If you are not, post here, and I will fix it. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:To explain: I was looking at the block of Rdm2376, and thought I could check whether you were blocked by changing the name in the box, which had the opposite effect. I unblocked you and hopefully killed the autoblock before posting here. I apologize profusely. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::No problem. I was rather expecting to be blocked - so nice to find I was unblocked in the same move. ;). --[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 02:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Accidental-blocking bonus''' - Perhaps a paypal transfer for accidental blocking: $10? (Or Donated to Red Cross for Haiti via cellphone text message.) [[User:Proofreader77|Proofreader77]] <sup>([[User talk:Proofreader77|interact]])</sup> 02:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*I'll gladly block you for $10. ⇌ [[User:Jake Wartenberg|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Jake</font>]] [[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Wartenberg</font>]] 02:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::You're on. I await the cash transfer.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 02:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
More seriously, I would be glad to post a more thorough clarification in your block log, if you would like (via another 1 second block). Something like "The previous block was placed erroneously, and the log message accidentally copied from the block of a different user." It is also possible to have the comment from the block deleted (via oversight), which will leave a message "comment removed" in its place except for administrators. I discussed it with an oversigher and it's up to you whether the comment is deleted in that way. I am not sure what I thought I was doing; I must have thought I was on the log page instead of the block page when I hit "return". Frankly, I'm embarrassed. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 03:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Dorothy Stoneman == |
|||
I'd appreciate if you would undelete [[Dorothy Stoneman]] so that I can add some good references. [[User:Matchups|Ma]]<sup>[[User talk:Matchups|t]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Matchups|c]]</sub>[[User:Matchups|hups]] 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Restored per Scott's comments elsewhere on the page. Thanks for offering to add references. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Just curious... == |
|||
...where you stand on articles such as [[R.J. Corman Railroad Group]], where a marginally notable person has named a company after himself, and the company has gone on to be notable. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 03:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== So tell me... == |
|||
I got a note a few days ago of an unreferenced BLP. But rather than just add ''any'' reference, I decided that I would do it properly and add appropriate refs. Now you've deleted the article. Now, quite frankly I couldn't care less about your decision to self-immolate, but you do realise that you're encouraging people to add ''any'' ref, no matter how bad? Making bad articles ''look'' more credible simply makes the entire project less credible. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Hm, so we should delete badly referenced articles too. I agree.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Yep, delete 99% of all articles. And why stop there? There's nothing to stop people from adding material to those either. Don't forget to delete the main page after you've deleted all the content. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 03:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
You've speedy deleted a federal and a state MP this morning. This is a blatant breach of the speedy deletion criteria, as they're not even eligible for deletion - they're ''explicitly'' listed as notable in [[WP:POLITICIAN]]. This is a serious breach of your |
|||
:The problem with people like you is that you've got notability considerations rammed so far up your back that you can't get beyond that. What on earth would a notability ''guideline'' have to do with the question of unreferenced BLPs? Serious breach of my responsibilities? Responsibilities to what? Or for what? To a basket case, morally bankrupt, community? Ha. There's already an arbcom case, and yes, I fully expect to be desysopped. Now, go away.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Brilliant. I've already added my bit there - good riddance to you. I'm also off to get my bit back so I can undo any against-policy deletions. Cheers. [[User:Rebecca|Rebecca]] ([[User talk:Rebecca|talk]]) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Bet you feel proud of that. But you are welcome to restore any article you wish to source.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'll leave [[Gypsy_(calypsonian)|this one]] to Guettarda. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Deletion of Heather McTaggart== |
|||
Could you please reconsider your deletion of [[Heather McTaggart]]? No speedy deletion criterion was nominated in your edit summary for the deletion, and I do not consider that any apply. I am considering taking this to [[WP:DRV|DRV]] but thought it a proper courtesy to raise it with you first. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 03:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Please restore this article == |
|||
Based on the Google cache of [[Dana (Korean singer)]], I found some of sources to cover the BLP article.[http://people.nate.com/people/info/da/na/dana/][http://www.mydaily.co.kr/news/read.html?newsid=200705220938581132][http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/entertainment/3132.html][http://news.mt.co.kr/view/mtview.php?no=2009010609562491299&type=2][http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/entertainment/3132.html][http://www.heraldbiz.com/SITE/data/html_dir/2005/10/28/200510280032.asp][http://www.breaknews.com/newnews/print.php?uid=13905] Please restore the article.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 03:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:You are welcome to restore any article you can source.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Then, restore the article of [[Dana (Korean singer)]]. --[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 03:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think Scott must have thought that you were an administrator. I have undeleted the article; could you please add the sources soon? Thanks, <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 03:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Haha, thanks NW for the restoration. I'll add more sources. --[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 03:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Added to arbcom case == |
|||
As you chose to initiate and continue copycat actions which were already under dispute and contention in another administrator's behavior, I believe you intentionally disrupted here. I am adding you to the Arbcom case request as a party. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 03:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Whatever.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 03:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Please also be advised that if you continue with the deletions and in the absence of a consensus emerging on policy here, I will issue a short block. Please don't. If a consensus emerges then that's fine, but while it's under dispute there is no emergency in play which would justify ignoring community consensus. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 03:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::You do realise how ridiculous that sounds? "If consensus emerges"? "there's no emergency in play"? So, what? You suggest I wait a bit more for discussion to solve this? Because like 70% of people will agree to change things to sort BLP if I'm just a little patient? What like, another 4 years? Ooo, maybe a block will teach me patience? Sorry, stopped believing in this a while ago. Block away.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 03:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I note that you just blocked yourself indefinitely for having done those out of process deletions. Perhaps this incident is not worth either the level of drama you and Kevin are bringing to it, nor your own indefinite banishment. |
|||
::::I mean, really. Take the spider man suit off and get down off the building, dude. I'd fishslap you, but you're up too high to reach at the moment. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 03:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What you reall mean is "play the wikigame properly and just forget about the ethics"? Sorry, not interested in the usual wiki putdowns. But that's always it, forget the external consequences of this site, and hit people with demands to play the inhouse games. Myopia. There's little point in reasoning with you really. You obviously "belive" and I don't.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 03:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::There was no emergency here. Perhaps you will come to see that. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 03:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Eh? No, I never said there was. So?--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 03:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Fernanda Eberstadt == |
|||
Thanks for deleting this drivel of an article. I agree: three years and no sources? Delete that un-sourced puffery. -- [[User:K72ndst|K72ndst]] ([[User talk:K72ndst|talk]]) 04:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Neville Bruns, Matt Rendell == |
|||
Could you, or another admin reading this, please restore both [[Matt Rendell]][http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/r.htm#Matthew%20Rendell%20%28West%20Torrens,%20Fitzroy,%20Brisbane%29][http://www.stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/players/M/Matthew_Rendell.html] and [[Neville Bruns]][http://www.stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/players/N/Neville_Bruns.html][http://www.geelongcats.com.au/players/playerprofile/nevillebruns/tabid/8137/playerid/15332/category/centurions/season/2009/selected/bio/default.aspx]. Both played about 200 games each in the [[Australian Football League]] and are very notable in the sport (I know that's not why u deleted them). I'll add some references. Cheers. [[User:Jevansen|Jevansen]] ([[User talk:Jevansen|talk]]) 04:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: I've restored them and added references. Scott stated that he was happy for people to do this above. [[User:Camw|Camw]] ([[User talk:Camw|talk]]) 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks mate. [[User:Jevansen|Jevansen]] ([[User talk:Jevansen|talk]]) 05:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Smiling == |
|||
Hi Scott. At the end of the of a long and frustrating day in the real world, I log into here and see an oddment in my watchlist. I've spent some time following threads, and have seen the table thumping and odd pontificating. Seeing that much dross, that should never be here in the first place, be shown the door, has brought a smile to my face that has not gone away this many hours later. [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 11:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Yaya Dillo Djerou == |
|||
Hello Scott; I have to object for how you deleted the article, as a very fast look at the subject should have least made you suspect it was a possibly notable (and it is; Djerou has held cabinet positions in the Chadian government, making him almost automatically notable). Thus, I can't help feeling [[WP:AFD]] would have been better, and even [[WP:PROD]] rather than your choice. That's said, it's not I don't understand you want to fight wikipedia being submerged by unsourced articles. To conclude, would you mind undeleting the article or if I undelete it? As for the sources, I'll provide to add them. Ciao, [[User:Aldux|Aldux]] ([[User talk:Aldux|talk]]) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry, I don't understand your objection. The deletion had absolutely nothing to do with notability. It was deleted as a BLP taggedas unsourced for a long time, without any sources being provided. If you can source it properly, then you are free to restore it.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:53, 21 January 2010
My name is Scott MacDonald (well, maybe) and I am a recovering Wikipediholic. For the sake of my work, family, and sanity, I have mainly given up this unhealthy addiction to a project of questionable ethics - and no desire to fix them.
Will I be back to full editing? I don't know. I hope not. Messages may be left here, and will be read periodically. However, I am unlikely to respond to most project-related messages.
--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of BLPs
Rationale.
Together with a number of other administrators, I am deleting biographies of living people which have been unsourced for considerable lengths of time, and have not improved. Currently, my deletion have been of articles unsourced for over three years.
I am doing this because it is the right thing to do, and is consistent with the BLP polcy that unacceptable unsourced material should be removed from this project. This has nothing to do with the notability or otherwise of the article. Deletion is, naturaly, a last resort. It would be better if these articles were fixed. However, three years of tagging and waiting and improvement has not happened. Three years of discussion and the community has put in place no other realistic remedy. Thus it is time for the last resort. I encourage other administrators to follow this lead - as I am following those who began this.
Of course, removing unsourced BLPs does not solve the BLP problem, but it is a start.
Objections
If you belive an article should be kept, you are at liberty to restore it, providing you properly fix the sourcing issues, and any other BLP issues it may raise. I do not object to undeletion if you take responsibility for this. If you are not an administrator, you can list the article below, note your willingness to fix it, and I, or another admin will restore it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)