Content deleted Content added
→Wikipedia:Salami tactics: comment Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*''' Delete or userfy''' More contentious battleground/conspiriologic polemic from the editor behind [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't bold your !votes|this]]. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 21:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC) |
*''' Delete or userfy''' More contentious battleground/conspiriologic polemic from the editor behind [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't bold your !votes|this]]. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 21:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
**Your presence here is a violation of [[WP:HOUND]]: we all know that you are conducting a vendetta because I criticised the block [[User:Dream Focus]] received because of what you provoked him into saying by wikihounding him. I have not been unretired for more than a few hours and you are back again, at the first venue I edit, and yet another XfD that I edited first. There is no point in doing this. Now the closing admin has been informed what you are up to, he is duty bound to accord your vote zero weight. That is how this process works. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC) And the substance of your vote is an ad hominem with zero merit. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 00:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
**Your presence here is a violation of [[WP:HOUND]]: we all know that you are conducting a vendetta because I criticised the block [[User:Dream Focus]] received because of what you provoked him into saying by wikihounding him. I have not been unretired for more than a few hours and you are back again, at the first venue I edit, and yet another XfD that I edited first. There is no point in doing this. Now the closing admin has been informed what you are up to, he is duty bound to accord your vote zero weight. That is how this process works. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC) And the substance of your vote is an ad hominem with zero merit. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 00:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::Actually my "vendetta" if I have one is against the clear battleground mentality you have demonstrated in multiple interactions with me going back months before the block to which you prefer, and including your most recent pretending to be retired. As for "hounding": you have been warned multiple times about [[User:JoshuSasori|what happens to editors who make repeated bad-faith hounding accusations]]: you really need to stop. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::The allegations you make are, as ever, entirely false from start to finish and that editor was blocked for socking. I have gone out of my way to avoid you as far as possible. If you are not following me, kindly explain how you got here. I think the chances of you arriving here by random chance are so small that you would have to be the unluckiest person in the history of the world for that to have happened, having regard to all the facts including your previous edits towards myself and others. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 02:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Bbb23}} I don't have time to get the diffs, but you told me last year that it wouldn't make a difference if JoshuSasori's user page said he was banned for socking or for harassing me. The above is the second time in ''one week'' that someone has denied that the user was banned for harassing me, and this time at least is specifically because of the inaccurate notice on his userpage. What can be done? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I apologise in advance if I have made a mistake about why that editor was blocked. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 03:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Why am I explaining this? His block log is there for all to see. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
::::::The editor engaged in a month-long campaign of making my editing miserable by making bogus hounding accusations (in his case, insisting I was only feigning an interest in Japanese cinema and ignoring evidence to the contrary) and was ultimately blocked for the specific reason that he threatened off-wiki harassment. That was in January 2013. He then started socking, and his sock was blocked in February 2013 (CU was rejected because the sock confessed. After his sock was blocked, he carried out his off-wiki threat, for which he was sitebanned at the beginning of March 2013. He then continued both socking on-wiki and harassing me off-wiki, but the first time CU got involved was in August 2013, five months after his ban. I should not have to explain any of this, and the only reason I didn't argue further (in March 2017, I think) that the sock template on his page should be altered to be less misleading was that I was assured it wouldn't matter, but now I have you engaging in the same behaviour that led to his block, and you denying it because his user page includes a demonstrably false claim that he was blocked "for abusing multiple accounts". [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
Revision as of 06:02, 4 July 2018
Wikipedia:Salami tactics
- Wikipedia:Salami tactics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This essay appears to be an oblique attack on the concept that notability is not inherited and a direct attack on the integrity of AfD commentators. It hinges on a fundamental misinterpretation of the result of certain AfDs and also depends entirely on assuming bad faith of the AfD participants. This is definitely not suitable for the main Wikipedia essay space, and I wouldn't support userfication either because it is a WP:POLEMIC. Reyk YO! 13:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Delete or Userfy - Wild, cynical, deletionist bogeyman narrative that runs contrary to and/or misrepresents both policies and guidelines that have broad consensus -- thus it has no place in projectspace. Userfy should be the default here, but with the current language, talking about nominators that are "too stupid" and nominators who "falsely pretend" -- and since the author has recently retired and thus unlikely to edit it -- delete may be the best option. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Userfy given the strong assertions (e.g. "too stupid"). I would not oppose changing the language a bit but I do not support deletion just because the author did not frame their ideas in quite the way that is perceived to be correct. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, at worst userfy. Project related essay on an important and contentious project practice, by a respected and experienced Wikipedian who engages around that practice. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see this term has been used a few times this year by the author, and at least once by another, and that it corresponds to a mainspace article salami tactics. The essay could use some work for comprehensibility, but it is a fine early version of something real. I think. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Salami tactics plainly do exist, they plainly have been used on this project, they plainly are likely to be used in the future, and they plainly are disruptive. This essay is not an 'attack' on 'not inherited'. It is about the exact opposite of 'not inherited'. There is no way that claiming a single topic is two topics is the same thing as claiming that two topics are a single topic (which is what 'not inherited' is essentially about). This essay complements 'not inherited' perfectly and in no way contradicts it. In any event, 'not inherited' is only an essay (part of WP:ATA), so that is hardly grounds to delete or userfy another essay. There is no failure to apply AGF either. The essay does not assert that erroneous assertion that one topic is two topics is necessarily the result of bad faith, but acknowledges that it might instead be the result of a mistake. In any event, AGF does not require us to assume that all AfD participants always act in good faith, see WP:NOTSUICIDE. It is common knowledge that some editors do sometimes tell lies. AGF does not require us to put on a pair of blinkers and assume that lies never happen, because there have been many proven instances of editors telling lies about all sorts of things. If the present wording is felt to be too ambiguous it can be modified. "Falsely pretend" could, for example, be replaced with "erroneously assert", since those words were never meant to automatically imply deliberate deception (although that does occasionally happen) on the part of any person who erroneously asserts that a single topic is two topics. I am not willing to accept userfication at this time. If the community feel it needs work, it would have to go into the draft space. I might not be able to carry out any improvements myself. Quite frankly, I want to do as little editing as possible at the moment. James500 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC) I must also protest at this nomination being made during the middle of a severe heatwave. Right now the temperature here is in excess of 29 degrees centigrade and will probably exceed 30 degrees soon. Asking people to edit an MfD under these conditions is beyond the pale. James500 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- From WP:NOTINHERITED:
notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either
.
- From WP:SALAMI:
One particular form of salami tactics consists of attempting to bring about the deletion of a parent topic by falsely pretending that its sub-topics are separate topics that are not part of the parent topic. In fact, coverage of a sub-topic is always coverage of its parent topic...
- Also, a trout to the nominator for (a) not asking where James lives before nominating, and (b) not even asking about the range of temperatures James feels is comfy enough to unretire from Wikipedia and participate at MfD. Perhaps a change to WP:BEFORE is on order. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- (1) That passage of NOTINHERITED is a manifest violation of ATD-M, which is policy. It certainly has no basis in anything that GNG actually says. If we were to apply that idea, every article on the project would be deleted. You could claim, for example, that every single thing George Washington did in his life was a separate event, he can't inherit notability from any of those events, therefore you cannot have a biography of him or anyone else. That type of reasoning is manifestly wrong. (2) Even if I was wrong about that, the passage of SALAMI you refer to is only a small part of the essay, which could be excised without affecting the core argument. (3) A modification to BEFORE is in order. Processes should not be run at times that are seriously inconvenient (and that is putting it mildly) to editors in a particular country. James500 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC) On second thoughts the two essays are not talking about the same thing. NOTINHERITED is talking about a situation where only one sub-topic has coverage, and no other coverage exists. SALAMI is talking about WP:POKEMON, where there is coverage for each of more than one sub topic. James500 (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC) I'll give some further examples to try to explain this. NOTINHERITED is talking about a BIO1E type situation, whereas SALAMI is talking about a BIO2E (or more than 2E) type situation. We have never accepted 2E as a valid argument against notability, but you find editors advancing that argument anyway at AfD, and that is salami tactics. Likewise WP:CREATIVE allows "multiple periodical reviews" of creative works to contribute to the notability of their creator. But the salami-ists will go around trying to delete the articles on the creative works without merging the reviews to the creators' article, thereby concealing the existence of the reviews and the fact the creator satisfies CREATIVE. And the creator gets wrongly nominated because his reviews have been removed. We have similar problems with people ignoring the h index criteria of PROF. And that's all salami. James500 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- From WP:NOTINHERITED:
- Delete or userfy More contentious battleground/conspiriologic polemic from the editor behind this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Your presence here is a violation of WP:HOUND: we all know that you are conducting a vendetta because I criticised the block User:Dream Focus received because of what you provoked him into saying by wikihounding him. I have not been unretired for more than a few hours and you are back again, at the first venue I edit, and yet another XfD that I edited first. There is no point in doing this. Now the closing admin has been informed what you are up to, he is duty bound to accord your vote zero weight. That is how this process works. James500 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC) And the substance of your vote is an ad hominem with zero merit. James500 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Actually my "vendetta" if I have one is against the clear battleground mentality you have demonstrated in multiple interactions with me going back months before the block to which you prefer, and including your most recent pretending to be retired. As for "hounding": you have been warned multiple times about what happens to editors who make repeated bad-faith hounding accusations: you really need to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The allegations you make are, as ever, entirely false from start to finish and that editor was blocked for socking. I have gone out of my way to avoid you as far as possible. If you are not following me, kindly explain how you got here. I think the chances of you arriving here by random chance are so small that you would have to be the unluckiest person in the history of the world for that to have happened, having regard to all the facts including your previous edits towards myself and others. James500 (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I don't have time to get the diffs, but you told me last year that it wouldn't make a difference if JoshuSasori's user page said he was banned for socking or for harassing me. The above is the second time in one week that someone has denied that the user was banned for harassing me, and this time at least is specifically because of the inaccurate notice on his userpage. What can be done? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I apologise in advance if I have made a mistake about why that editor was blocked. James500 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The allegations you make are, as ever, entirely false from start to finish and that editor was blocked for socking. I have gone out of my way to avoid you as far as possible. If you are not following me, kindly explain how you got here. I think the chances of you arriving here by random chance are so small that you would have to be the unluckiest person in the history of the world for that to have happened, having regard to all the facts including your previous edits towards myself and others. James500 (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Actually my "vendetta" if I have one is against the clear battleground mentality you have demonstrated in multiple interactions with me going back months before the block to which you prefer, and including your most recent pretending to be retired. As for "hounding": you have been warned multiple times about what happens to editors who make repeated bad-faith hounding accusations: you really need to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
|