Note: I was once known as Chillum, so perhaps you already know me. HighInBC 20:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.
@MSJapan: When private information is not involved I prefer to handle communication out in the open on wiki rather than through private e-mail. I am happy to discuss the topics of your e-mail if you are willing to discuss some or all of your points here. Which points if any you wish to bring to this public forum is of course entirely up to you. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, then.
Point 1: The ANI was due to persistent judgment issues (e.g., editorial conduct) in DEPRODs by Kvng. Seven discussions faulting Kvng's behavior were noted in the last month on his talk page, another on the Prod talk that I wasn't aware of, and no change in behavior. Whether or not it's strictly against policy or not, seven complaints is not small. Nevertheless, the ANI closes with no sanction, and this happens, where an unsourced article created as the only edit of a user, is kept "because it meets GNG since it's on Google Maps." Since when is that in line with GNG? That's the crux of it - personal ideas are being used instead of policy, regardless of timing, but I still maintain that if in a week, no one has addressed a PROD at all with sources, courtesy dictates that the article should be deleted per the template instructions. The subsequent policy discussion pretty much went nowhere, especially when Kvng attempted to rewrite the policy to specifically condone his patrolling behavior.
Point 2: Kvng keeps a list of DEPRODs - it doesn't require contrib hunting to find them. I went through a few, and found two that were questionable. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Rosman I started because it was deprodded to redirect or merge, but the person isn't named in the target, and the article as it stood was based on one news article. "Target doesn't appear in article" is an oft-used RfD argument. I stated that redirect wasn't appropriate the target isn't in the article in my nom, and Kvng accused me of not following BEFORE.
Point 3: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Ahmad_Fayyad was deprodded. The extent of the article was that "he's dead." Notability was clearly not established. Purplebackpack89 accused me of a disruptive AfD, Kvng echoed the keep, and I decided I was not going to contribute if I was going to be followed around and tag-team voted against in bad faith. After announcing my retirement based on that, PBP posted on my talk page, basically saying that he was following me so I'd lay off Kvng, and that I could edit wherever I wanted otherwise and there'd be no problem. I'm sorry, but that's bullying, it's not appropriate, and as I said then, I'm not going to contribute here if it's permissible to have my editing arbitrarily circumscribed by threats from a user who wasn't involved until he interjected himself into the ANI. As far as the AfD goes, the one uninvolved voter (so far) agreed with my assessment.
All of the above points (save point 1) were brought up in the ANI, which was closed without action. There are actionable issues here, period. MSJapan (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The entire point of the prod system is that an article can be deleted if nobody has an objection. Even after being deleted as prod an article an be undeleted on request. They don't have to be right, they just have to object. Prod is only for uncontroversial deletions.
If you cannot get it deleted through PROD and it is as obviously wrong as you say then it should take very little discussion at AfD to find just that.
While I may or may not agree with their judgement of the article that is okay, because we have more robust deletion mechanisms like AfD. Kvng is allowed to object to a proposed deletion for whatever reason they believe are valid. I don't think they are acting in bad faith.
Wikipedia got along fine with PROD for a long time, it was added to make it easier to deal with topics nobody cared to preserve. If you want to expand the scope of PROD then I suggest you go to the policy talk page and propose a change.
You assertion that "There are actionable issues here, period" does not hold up to me. Perhaps another admin will feel differently. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 00:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Fine, but let me ask you this: I did follow the process. I took the article to AfD. You yourself say that's what to do. I was then accused of a disruptive AfD, and two involved editors voted keep. Those are not good-faith votes, and in fact sabotage the AfD process. One of those editors then basically said "don't Afd this other guy's articles, and I'll leave you alone." What is not actionable about that behavior? Or is it because I was wrong that nothing else I say has merit? MSJapan (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I would not worry about blustering, I don't think anyone with the block button is going to consider the AfD disruptive. As for someone saying "don't Afd this other guy's articles, and I'll leave you alone", I don't see anyone saying that. Can you give me a diff? HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I provided the diff earlier in Point #3, but here it is again. [1]. MSJapan (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes I read that. It really does say what you said it says in your paraphrased in quote. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 02:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, so if you agree that it does say that, what now? Am I free to edit as I feel policy dictates no matter whose contribs it is, or am I expected to stay away from one editor's edits because some other user (not the prodder) is going to harass me about it? That's where I have the problem.
Setting aside the ANI itself as (apparently) a matter of interpretation, and focusing down on just "good PROD or not", Kvng has no problem with people questioning his edits. We've also established that AfD is the established next step on a DEPROD if one disagrees. I don't have a problem sending something to community consensus, but whether it skews the votes or not, I don't want to see speedy keep as disruptive followed by a tag-team vote, and the subsequent garbage every time I take one of these things to AfD. That's why I want something done proactively - it makes no sense for me to willing volunteer in a hostile environment. MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
HighInBC, I'm sorry this MSJapan fellow's wasting your time. Apparently, since he (wrongfully) feels bullied by me, he wants to get YOU TO bully me. Yes, I consider his actions (including this very thread) disruptive, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. He carried on in that ANI far more and far longer than was necessary, continuing to demand punishment for Kvng when it should have been clear to him none was forthcoming; now he’s asking YOU to sanction Kvng.
Yes, I voted in those AfDs; I was perfectly entitled to. I voted in TWO AfDs MSJapan started; he seems to make it out like it’s a helluvalot more. I did not come to the AfDs with any preconceived notion of how to vote, but I quickly saw that one article he nominated was already sourced, and the other could be fixed rather than deleted. Instead of just taking the fact somebody disagreed with his AfD nominations in stride, MSJapan decided to retire.
When I tried to talk MSJapan out of an ill-conceived retirement on his talk page, he threw all the slings and arrows he could at me because, heaven forbid, I suggested to him that future interaction with Kvng was unwise. And now he's here; devoting his only time and effort on the project to trying to get Kvng and me punished. Basically, what he seems to be asking (in the most exaggerated and incendiary language possible) is that you block me for disagreeing with him, and maybe unilaterally issue some sanctions on Kvng while you’re at it. What a shame. pbp 03:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the one thing ANI settled is that nobody is getting sanctioned for what has already happened. Kvng is welcome to remove prods, but MSJapan is also welcome to review those removals and seek AfD is they desire. I do wish all parties would stop assuming bad faith on the part of the other though. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 03:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Quick clarification
In your ANI close, you said "does have merit and is unlikely to be acted upon"- did you mean, "does not have merit"? Just FYI! MuffledPocketed 16:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes you are right, I have fixed that. Thank you. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 16:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi
In your close of "Joseph2302" on AN/I you wrote "BerendWorst's complaint does have merit BerendWorst's complaint does have merit...". Did you mean that or did you mean "does not have merit"? Just wondering. BMK (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)