User talk:Argyriou/Archive4

Archive of discussions regarding Barrington Hall, YouTube, and the disputed actions of Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and Cindery. This archive will hopefully not be added to as I get around to cleaning up my main talk page.

nice edit[edit]

of barrington intro. Cindery 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Hall[edit]

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Barrington Hall. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. See the discussion on the Talk:Barrington Hall page - you are incorrectly interpreting the policy. Argyriou (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review the concerned guideline and revert yourself. Also your warning, to a edit made in good faith came as unwarranted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} ^{L} 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the YouTube links are not reliable sources as any person with an internet connection can upload any kind of file over their website. Many of the vidoes uploaded are copyrighted by their respective owners and links to those should not be used on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} ^{L} 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall and [[Talk:WP:EL]]. There is no consensus that it is against policy to link to YouTube videos which are not clearly infringing copyright. That particular video clip is claimed to be allowed to be posted on YouTube, and nobody has offered any evidence that the clip exists on YouTube in violation of copyright. Deletion of a link which does not knowingly violate copyright, which has been discussed at grat length on the talk page, is not a good-faith edit. Neither is wholesale removal of links to YouTube throughout Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was treated very rudely, then blocked, after adding YouTube links to the Graham Wiggins article. Wiggins is an American didgeridoo player and I emailed to ask him for some additional biographical information about his life, instruments, and work. He responded by posting some videos of his live performances on YouTube, which were clearly marked as having been uploaded by him (the performer himself). I linked to them so that our users could see excactly how he plays his didgeridoos, particularly the keyed didgeridoo he invented, and an editor removed them, insisting that we must not link to "copyright violation" YouTube links. From what I read here, perhaps I was right all along and the removing editor was the one being disruptive. Badagnani 10:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on Talk:Barrington Hall for deciding if we need to keep YouTube video links on this website. Speaking of WT:EL, the guideline clearly states –

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. – YouTube is not an authority, there is not reliability as anyone can upload new videos, including copyrighted ones. Facilitation of copyright violations is not a choice with Wikipedia. Either link it to the website retaining the copyrights over the video or remove the link to YouTube.

Kindly get yourself familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines of reliable sources and external links and revert yourself. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} ^{L} 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs[edit]

RFCs should be filed at WP:RFC, and the category you want is at the bottom, "Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals". – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:26, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I've been mildly corrected here. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:45, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

This still needs to be filed at WP:RFC. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Please file your request for comment at WP:RFC. The EL talk page is for discussing how to write the guideline, not for hashing out a dispute over links. (However, a notification of the RFC is certainly acceptable on the EL talk page).

Just as an FYI, this "project" was started by me after a number of conversations on IRC and two threads on WP:AN requesting input. This wasn't done willi-nilly as most people assume. It is my eventual intention to shift over to videos.google once the youtube trash is cleared up. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies (It's currently the one at the top), but the instructions aren't clear on where else or how else it needs to be filed. Feel free to let me know what else I need to do with this. Argyriou (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the manner described under Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct... I was not being... clear I guess. That's my mistake. :( I know this isn't a user conduct RFC, but it spans multiple policies and their really isn't a central place where this "project" is being organised. (Dmc and I both have our own sub-pages in our user-space). ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well below "User conduct", at the bottom of the page, is the RFC category ""Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals". – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 20:01, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Aside from a little unpleasantness which I'm not really bothered by, I don't see this as a user conduct issue. The YouTube deletionists are acting according to what they see as Wikipedia policy, and the others are complaining that they're misinterpreting Wikipedia policy. I believe that (almost) everyone involved in the deletions would be willing to adjust their behavior if the policy were more clearly stated. Argyriou (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting this is a User Conduct issue... I'm only suggesting that since this is not really centrally organised anywhere, a sub-page of WP:RFC would be the best place to have the RFC. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to a subpage of WP:RFC sounds fine to me; I'd suggest leaving behind a redirect under the section heading in WT:EL, and fixing the listing at WP:RFC/Policies. But I'm not going to do it myself, as I'm an interested party, and people may think I made the move for nefarious purposes. Argyriou (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - I think the RFC is where it should be because its a policy RFC not a conduct one. Its just going to take a lot of space on an already busy page. Why not move it to a subpage of WP:EL?Spartaz 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I left you a question in the RFC asking if you could document any deleted links that you disagreed with (then I went and made some comments anyway - apologies if they end up out of context from what you are talking about) Spartaz 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is definitely a user conduct issue. And Argyriou, have you seen the discussions at NOR, ANI, and EL dating from a month ago??? They are very clearly aware of all the issues tou are trying to "discuss" in good faith, and also very clear that they do NOT have consensus, that these issues have been debated extensively and consensus is against them. Cindery 00:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arg, as you can see at EL, Barberio, a respected longtime EL page editor, agrees this is a user conduct RFC. Let's get it over with--they are wasting your time on purpose by trying to avoid a user conduct RFC (because that is what will work). YT has been debated extensively on policy pages and community consensus is already in favor of no ban/keeping some links--they are violating consensus (and multiple policies, not to mention causing legal jeopardy) via conduct. Continuing the bickerfest/pretending there is any legitimate issue to discuss at this point just drags it out further/allows them to engage in continued disruptive acting-out. Cindery 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I've been active here less than three months, I've noticed that the Wikipedia community tend to approve more of those who proceed conservatively, touching all the bases, seeking consensus and harmonious resolutions while assuming good faith — than of those who rush the process, skip steps, or seek to act punitively. Cindery, I appreciate that your experiences may well have worn your patience thin, and I can sympathize with that, but please bear with Argyriou's attempt to touch all the bases once more. If he succeeds at getting others to cooperate on reaching (and abiding by) consensus this time, that's a victory for everyone. And if not, then the track record will be that much clearer to later readers for whatever purpose. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 06:26, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, Jordan, but you just don't seem to realize how long this has been going on, how much discussion in good faith has already been engaged in, and how having to continue these circular arguments with people who are acting in bad faith is a huge disruption/waste of time. Policy, guideline, and consensus are already established against the YT project, and the behavior of the minority--their treatment of other editors--has been inexcusable. (Mismy should be desysopped.) Please see my talkpage, "Ongoing draft of RFC re Nick" (and "Nearly Headless Nick"). It's a user conduct issue. Cindery 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placing of test2 and test3 templates on talk pages[edit]

Hi Argyriou. Edits like this [1] are really not productive or fair. The user you gave this warning to was not carrying out vandalism, which is what that template is clearly intended for. If you are in dispute with the user over content, then continue to engage he him and other users in the discussions. Issuing vandalism warnings, particularly ones that threaten a block, is very counterproductive and disruptive. I appreciate you do not like the fact that the user removed an external link, but it wasn'yt vandalism, and was not deserving of that message.

Please, don't use such templates again unless warning people actively engaged in obvious vandalism. Removing a link is not vandalism - it is a content dispute, which can hopefully be resolved civilly and maturely without resorting to threats of blocking and suchlike. If you have any questions, let me know. All the best, Proto::► 11:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a link which was previously removed, and was restored following discussion on the article's talk page, with no additional justification other than the same justification which was previously rejected, is vandalism. If Sir Nicholas had gone to the trouble of looking on the article's talk page, either before or after, and said anything to justify re-deleting the link, then it would have been a content dispute. As it is, Sir Nicholas is engaging in vandalism. Argyriou (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be so quick to label content disputes as vandalism. Vandalism would have been replacing the link with U ALL SUCK LOL! or something similar. This is a dispute over content. As soon as you label someone a vandal, you immediately upset them if they believe they are acting in good faith (which is the case here), and you show yourself as being unprepared to listen to the other's point of view (also the case here). I very much appreciate you believe you are acting to restore legitimate content, but, please, consider continuing to participate in the discussions rather than labelling people as vandals when it is not clear vandalism; doing so is disruptive and incivil, and it's really not helping your case.

Whilst discussions on the article's talk page are great, occasionally, all articles on Wikipedia have to meet Wikipedia policies, regardless of what the article talk page determines. Examples of this include WP:V, WP:NOT and suchlike. What we are trying to do at the moment is work on a policy to establish just what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia with regards to YouTube links. You are already participating in the discussion - please continue to do so! That is the correct way to get a good result. Whilst filing an RFC is very much your perogative and your right (and why I have opposed its deletion on deletion review), people respond better to civil suggestions and reasoned discussion, rather than threats and being labelled vandals. Please, at least, think about it. Best, Proto::► 10:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft RFC was deleted-and-protected.[edit]

Just a courtesy notification, since the deleting admin neglected to give you one (or any warning or request to change it): User:Argyriou/SirNicholas "has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation" by Pilotguy (talk • contribs), with the comment "nonsense deleted". I've brought this up at WP:ANI#Repeated_incivility_despite_warnings and posted a courtesy notification of that at Pilotguy's talk page. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 17:41, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Not Kuntan[edit]

This might be deleted soon. Daakshayani 10:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't particularly care. Dmcdevit has been quick to assume incivility, but nothing that I have experienced from him rises to the level of abuse of power sufficient to warrant an RfC. If things against Sir Nick go to ArbCom, I'll include Dmcdevit as an interested party, because I don't believe he could judge that case fairly, but otherwise, I have no reasons to take actions against Dmcdevit. Argyriou (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abuse of admin powers user conduct RFC filed[edit]

Courtesy notice: [2] Cindery 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things[edit]

First, where's the RfC on Sir Nicholas? I didn't find it at WP:RFC. Second, I agree about Ellard. I would rename / refactor / redirect to an article on the case, which is much less problematic than an article on a living individual which focuses only on the conviction. We have an article on the Jamie Bulger case but not, as far as I can tell, on the two perpetrators, Thompson and Venables.

Happy New One, Guy (Help!) 10:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC on Sir Nicholas is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. I haven't weighed in yet. Argyriou (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your mail. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:02, 29 Dec 2006 (UTC).

discussion re RfC certification, second RfC, etc[edit]

courtesy notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Nick_RfC Cindery 23:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my message on the RfC[edit]

|See Kundan After Sundown 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cindery[edit]

Since Sir Nick is now calling any further discussion feeding the trolls and publicly proving that this is all due to his RfC which he amusingly calls disruptive then I guess the issue is settled then. New rule: Don't mess with Sir Nick or he will ban you and call the discussion feeding the trolls. Apparently Wikipedia now works a state within the state where all basic civil rights such as being innoncent of a crime (death threats) until proven guilty means absolutely nothing. MartinDK 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]