This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MSGJ (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 3 September 2010 (→Discussion about Colonel Warden's oppose: correct first line). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:25, 3 September 2010 by MSGJ (talk | contribs) (→Discussion about Colonel Warden's oppose: correct first line)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Editing statistics |
|---|
Username: BigDom User groups: autoreviewer, reviewer First edit: Jul 19, 2006 09:09:49 Unique pages edited: 6,536 Average edits per page: 2.16 Live edits: 13,348 Deleted edits: 777 Total edits (including deleted): 14,125 Namespace Totals Article 9163 68.66% Talk 1260 9.44% User 291 2.18% User talk 739 5.54% Misplaced Pages 703 5.27% Misplaced Pages talk 310 2.32% File 161 1.21% File talk 54 0.40% Template 279 2.09% Template talk 241 1.81% Category 100 0.75% Category talk 44 0.33% Portal 1 0.01% Month counts 2006/07 10 2006/08 288 2006/09 556 2006/10 315 2006/11 596 2006/12 503 2007/01 173 2007/02 251 2007/03 0 2007/04 0 2007/05 6 2007/06 322 2007/07 243 2007/08 214 2007/09 318 2007/10 342 2007/11 2 2007/12 0 2008/01 1 2008/02 0 2008/03 0 2008/04 0 2008/05 11 2008/06 0 2008/07 1 2008/08 0 2008/09 0 2008/10 0 2008/11 0 2008/12 0 2009/01 0 2009/02 0 2009/03 0 2009/04 0 2009/05 126 2009/06 246 2009/07 716 2009/08 877 2009/09 596 2009/10 568 2009/11 369 2009/12 609 2010/01 538 2010/02 687 2010/03 550 2010/04 530 2010/05 385 2010/06 1044 2010/07 514 2010/08 839 Top edited pages Article 135 - Burnley_F.C. 79 - 1920–21_Burnley_F.C._season 73 - 2009–10_Chamois_Niortais_F.C._season 66 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C. 63 - Clarke_Carlisle 49 - Turf_Moor 44 - Djibril_Konaté 38 - Michael_Duff_(footballer) 37 - Steve_Jones_(Northern_Ireland_footballer) 33 - Accrington_Stanley_F.C. Talk 10 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C. 8 - Joe_Cada/GA1 8 - 2010_Food_City_500/GA1 7 - 1920–21_Burnley_F.C._season 6 - Clarke_Carlisle 5 - Douglas_Jardine/GA1 4 - Djibril_Konaté 4 - Shoegazing_Kids 4 - 2010_Cambodian_League 4 - List_of_Montserrat_national_football_team_results User 101 - BigDom 70 - BigDom/Sandbox 56 - BigDom/Sandbox2 12 - BigDom/Sandbox3 11 - BigDom/Did_you_know? 8 - BigDom/monobook.js 5 - BigDom/vector.js 4 - BigDom/France_task_force 4 - BigDom/CSDexample 3 - UBX/Ancient_Egypt User talk 27 - BigDom 18 - Carlinbohs 17 - Oqaz 15 - Malleus_Fatuorum 13 - Struway2 12 - Liamtaylor007 12 - Mattythewhite 11 - WFCforLife 8 - ChrisTheDude 7 - Bealzbob Misplaced Pages 59 - WikiProject_Football 44 - Good_article_nominations 23 - Files_for_deletion/2010_March_14 18 - Files_for_deletion/2010_March_15 16 - Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Nelson_F.C._seaso... 16 - Good_articles 14 - Files_for_deletion/2010_March_13 14 - Requests_for_adminship/BigDom 14 - Featured_article_candidates/1920–21_Burnley_F.C.... 13 - Featured_article_candidates/Willie_Irvine/archive1 Misplaced Pages talk 234 - WikiProject_Football 23 - Notability_(people) 8 - WikiProject_Football/Season_article_task_force 8 - WikiProject_Football/France_task_force 7 - AutoWikiBrowser 6 - Requests_for_adminship 6 - Notability_(sports) 5 - Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus_2 4 - WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues 3 - WikiProject_Cricket File 4 - Eddie_Mosscrop.jpg 3 - SO_Cholet.gif 3 - Nelson_F.C._1922-3.jpg 3 - HaworthJ.jpg 2 - Nevermind_Living_Dead.jpg 2 - AS_Monts.gif 2 - Joe_Birds.jpg 2 - Logo_DNCG.png 2 - SU_Dives.gif 2 - FC_Chartres.gif File talk 1 - Kit_body_black_lowleft_highright.png 1 - Teams_line_up.jpg 1 - Arsenal_open_top_bus_parade_2004.jpg 1 - Arsenal_FC.svg 1 - Nelson_F.C._1922-3.jpg 1 - Arsenal_crest_1888.png 1 - Arsenal_fc_old_crest_small.png 1 - Niortfc.png 1 - Arsene_Wenger2009.JPG 1 - Emirates_Stadium_Arsenal.jpg Template 37 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C._squad 37 - Burnley_F.C._squad 17 - Accrington_Stanley_F.C._squad 7 - Championnat_de_France_Amateurs_Groupe_C 6 - Championnat_de_France_Amateurs_2_Groupe_C 6 - Championnat_de_France_Amateurs_2_Groupe_F 5 - Nelson_F.C. 5 - Championnat_National 5 - Stade_Laval_squad 4 - Burnley_F.C. Template talk 195 - Did_you_know 3 - Accrington_Stanley_F.C._managers 3 - WikiProject_Football 1 - Super_League_Greece_Greek_footballer_of_the_year 1 - Super_League_Greece_young_footballer_of_the_year 1 - 2009_MLS_season_by_team 1 - 2002FIFAWorldCupqualificationEurope 1 - Stranraer_F.C._squad 1 - 1962FIFAWorldCupqualification 1 - 1958FIFAWorldCupqualification Category 4 - People_from_Higham 3 - Nelson_F.C._managers 2 - People_from_Barrowford 2 - FA-class_Football_in_France_articles 2 - Colne_Town_F.C._players 2 - Barnoldswick_Town_F.C._players 2 - Chatham_Town_F.C._players 2 - Sutton_Junction_F.C._players 1 - List-Class_football_in_France_articles 1 - Unassessed_football_in_France_articles Category talk 1 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C._players 1 - Association_football_sweepers 1 - Association_football_fullbacks 1 - Association_football_forwards 1 - Association_football_utility_players 1 - ASC_Jeanne_d'Arc_players 1 - SR_Colmar_players 1 - Cheshunt_F.C._players 1 - Les_Herbiers_VF_players 1 - Blyth_Spartans_A.F.C. Portal 1 - Association_football/Projects/List Edit stats retrieved using X!'s counter. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC) |
Discussion about Colonel Warden's oppose
- Oppose Checking his contributions for Oct'09, we see him creating lots of stubby footballer articles such as this BLP. But in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ben Kudjodji he invokes WP:IAR to !vote delete contrary to consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I fully respect your oppose, but to be clear, Dom was not calling for consensus to be ignored. He was arguing against the majority position (as you are) and explained his reasoning eloquently (as you have). --WFC-- 10:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- He invokes IAR here. My objection is to the contrast between this case and his own perfunctory stubs. It does not seem proper for him to be arguing for deletion in a case which seems so similar to his own creation(s). As a contributor, this is not a big deal, but I prefer a higher standard of consistency and tolerance in admins. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- BigDom does say IAR there, but is not saying "per IAR let's ignore consensus" - I just want that to be clear, since your original note might make it seem like that was the point. The point of IAR here is to challenge wp:ATHLETE on an edge case where the player only played one minute of fully professional play. This is a legitimate thing to do. wp:ATHLETE even says "occasional exceptions may apply" at the top of the page. That's what IAR is all about. Additionally, BigDom doesn't seem to like wp:ATHLETE much, and these guidelines can get modified if at AfDs they are routinely found to be problematic, so a la jury nullification I think this is a reasonable way to call this guideline into question. Now, an interesting question is how would BigDom have closed this AfD? ErikHaugen (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if I hadn't been involved in the discussion I would have closed it as keep in spite of my own opinions, seeing as that was clearly the consensus. BigDom 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- If the only thing you can find is a questionable (but not unreasonable) application of IAR from a year ago, then I would ask if we're being a tad too stringent. If there were multiple cases of BigDom running all over WP doing whatever he wants, and quoting IAR as the excuse, then I'd say you have a point. I don't see any indication of that. Nobody is perfect (even admins). SnottyWong 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if I hadn't been involved in the discussion I would have closed it as keep in spite of my own opinions, seeing as that was clearly the consensus. BigDom 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- BigDom does say IAR there, but is not saying "per IAR let's ignore consensus" - I just want that to be clear, since your original note might make it seem like that was the point. The point of IAR here is to challenge wp:ATHLETE on an edge case where the player only played one minute of fully professional play. This is a legitimate thing to do. wp:ATHLETE even says "occasional exceptions may apply" at the top of the page. That's what IAR is all about. Additionally, BigDom doesn't seem to like wp:ATHLETE much, and these guidelines can get modified if at AfDs they are routinely found to be problematic, so a la jury nullification I think this is a reasonable way to call this guideline into question. Now, an interesting question is how would BigDom have closed this AfD? ErikHaugen (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- He invokes IAR here. My objection is to the contrast between this case and his own perfunctory stubs. It does not seem proper for him to be arguing for deletion in a case which seems so similar to his own creation(s). As a contributor, this is not a big deal, but I prefer a higher standard of consistency and tolerance in admins. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- What you're talking about are things from before his last RFA. I think that assuming from what he's done after his last RFA would be a more appropriate judgement. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Colonel Warden, those edits you are referring to took place 11 months ago. Do you have examples of this behavior from the last few months? Kingturtle (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's possible that (s)he hasn't yet realized that this is BigDom's second RFA attempt. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't checked the previous RFA which I did not recall. I find that I opposed that on the grounds that the candidate was creating poorly sourced BLPs. I check his contributions since then and find that not much has changed. For example, see Mike Conroy (footballer born 1957). This is sourced to a fan site which does not appear to be reliable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- The homepage of the Neil Brown website states "The English League player's appearances and goalscorers statistics are drawn primarily from Barry Hugman's 'The Premier and Football League Player's Records' series of books", so I would argue that the site is reliable. BigDom 06:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see our policy on reliable sources which explains that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". In this case, you are taking it on trust that this fan web-site has used the Barry Hugman source and has transcribed it accurately. Note also that this site states that "The English League player's appearances and goalscorers statistics are drawn primarily from Barry Hugman's 'The Premier and Football League Player's Records' series of books, for which I am extremely grateful for his permission to use". Did you likewise ask Barry Hugman for his permission to copy this information to Misplaced Pages? Do you realise that by copying these records to Misplaced Pages, you are implicitly claiming ownership and giving the world a licence to copy this further? My impression is that you are quite naive about these matters because our sports articles get a free pass when it comes to notability and so they haven't been regularly roasted at AFD, as other topics are. I caught you out on this at your previous RfA but your comments and behaviour indicate that you are still quite unfamiliar with our rigorous policies in this area. This doesn't make you a bad person but it means that you lack the knowledge and experience of sourcing, copyright and BLP issues which we expect of an admin. If, as an admin, you were to become involved in some topical matter like the current furore about William Hague, you would soon be out of your depth and might easily make a wrong call. This could be an expensive mistake and so it seems best that you get some wider experience before becoming an admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Implicity claiming ownership? Now I've heard everything. I do understand the BLP policies that Misplaced Pages has, and I know what you're getting at on the reliable sources front. I refer you to WP:BLP, which clearly states that only material that is "contentious" or "likely to be challenged" should be attributed to a high quality source. Do you consider football statistics to be contentious? So it appears that it is the two guidelines that are contrary, which might go some way to explaining our slightly different views on the subject. The bit about self-published sources on the BLP page only warns in detail against the use of blogs or tweets, etc, although admittedly websites are mentioned. I certainly do understand copyright, and what you're saying is that every time someone uses a source they should ask permission; that's just not true is it? Every single admin on this site will have used a non-PD source without "permission". By the way, I have no interest whatsoever in William Hague or controversy (I have no idea what the current "furore" is about) and wouldn't get involved in anything like that, I can assure you. BigDom 10:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- One of the facts which you put in this particular BLP was the person's date of birth. This is sensitive personal information because it tells you the person's age and may be used for personal identification. The football statistics have commercial value as Mr Hugman seems to make his living by publishing them. As you seem to have copied them without permission or significant transformation, there seems to be a copyright issue here. You seem to be adding large quantities of this information to Misplaced Pages and this goes beyond fair use. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do you propose removing statistics from all sports biographies then? Because someone must have collated them before they were put on Misplaced Pages and it's pretty difficult to "significantly transform" stats. BigDom 11:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see sweat of the brow which explains that, if you rip off someone else's hard work, then, under UK and EU law, you are potentially liable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- But nobody is trying to pass off the stats as their own. Nobody on Misplaced Pages adds stats to articles in the hope of making a profit from somebody else's work. Surely if Misplaced Pages saw a problem in people doing this, they would have put a stop to it years ago? BigDom 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Foundation which hosts Misplaced Pages has a hands-off policy so that they are not legally liable for the content which the editors create. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- But nobody is trying to pass off the stats as their own. Nobody on Misplaced Pages adds stats to articles in the hope of making a profit from somebody else's work. Surely if Misplaced Pages saw a problem in people doing this, they would have put a stop to it years ago? BigDom 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see sweat of the brow which explains that, if you rip off someone else's hard work, then, under UK and EU law, you are potentially liable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do you propose removing statistics from all sports biographies then? Because someone must have collated them before they were put on Misplaced Pages and it's pretty difficult to "significantly transform" stats. BigDom 11:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- One of the facts which you put in this particular BLP was the person's date of birth. This is sensitive personal information because it tells you the person's age and may be used for personal identification. The football statistics have commercial value as Mr Hugman seems to make his living by publishing them. As you seem to have copied them without permission or significant transformation, there seems to be a copyright issue here. You seem to be adding large quantities of this information to Misplaced Pages and this goes beyond fair use. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Implicity claiming ownership? Now I've heard everything. I do understand the BLP policies that Misplaced Pages has, and I know what you're getting at on the reliable sources front. I refer you to WP:BLP, which clearly states that only material that is "contentious" or "likely to be challenged" should be attributed to a high quality source. Do you consider football statistics to be contentious? So it appears that it is the two guidelines that are contrary, which might go some way to explaining our slightly different views on the subject. The bit about self-published sources on the BLP page only warns in detail against the use of blogs or tweets, etc, although admittedly websites are mentioned. I certainly do understand copyright, and what you're saying is that every time someone uses a source they should ask permission; that's just not true is it? Every single admin on this site will have used a non-PD source without "permission". By the way, I have no interest whatsoever in William Hague or controversy (I have no idea what the current "furore" is about) and wouldn't get involved in anything like that, I can assure you. BigDom 10:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please see our policy on reliable sources which explains that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". In this case, you are taking it on trust that this fan web-site has used the Barry Hugman source and has transcribed it accurately. Note also that this site states that "The English League player's appearances and goalscorers statistics are drawn primarily from Barry Hugman's 'The Premier and Football League Player's Records' series of books, for which I am extremely grateful for his permission to use". Did you likewise ask Barry Hugman for his permission to copy this information to Misplaced Pages? Do you realise that by copying these records to Misplaced Pages, you are implicitly claiming ownership and giving the world a licence to copy this further? My impression is that you are quite naive about these matters because our sports articles get a free pass when it comes to notability and so they haven't been regularly roasted at AFD, as other topics are. I caught you out on this at your previous RfA but your comments and behaviour indicate that you are still quite unfamiliar with our rigorous policies in this area. This doesn't make you a bad person but it means that you lack the knowledge and experience of sourcing, copyright and BLP issues which we expect of an admin. If, as an admin, you were to become involved in some topical matter like the current furore about William Hague, you would soon be out of your depth and might easily make a wrong call. This could be an expensive mistake and so it seems best that you get some wider experience before becoming an admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- The homepage of the Neil Brown website states "The English League player's appearances and goalscorers statistics are drawn primarily from Barry Hugman's 'The Premier and Football League Player's Records' series of books", so I would argue that the site is reliable. BigDom 06:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is September '10 now. Is it impossible for us, as humans, to learn from our mistakes after almost a year? Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Mike Conroy (footballer born 1957) article was created two months ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Hugman Players' records books are based on numerous other books like the Soccerdata, the Breedon and Yore publications (page 7 of the 2005 edition) . It's a comprehensive source, but certainly not the only one. Cattivi (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't checked the previous RFA which I did not recall. I find that I opposed that on the grounds that the candidate was creating poorly sourced BLPs. I check his contributions since then and find that not much has changed. For example, see Mike Conroy (footballer born 1957). This is sourced to a fan site which does not appear to be reliable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's possible that (s)he hasn't yet realized that this is BigDom's second RFA attempt. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Colonel Warden, those edits you are referring to took place 11 months ago. Do you have examples of this behavior from the last few months? Kingturtle (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I fully respect your oppose, but to be clear, Dom was not calling for consensus to be ignored. He was arguing against the majority position (as you are) and explained his reasoning eloquently (as you have). --WFC-- 10:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)