Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua 2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC).

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

The user Fasach Nua has been involved in disruptive edits and edit warring in the 'Notable Player' sections of 'National Football Team' articles.

Desired outcome

Warning or short term ban as deemed necessary.

Description

The user began editing 'National Football Team' articles on August 10, 2008. These edits involved the deletion of the entire section about 'Notable Players'. These edits initially contained no edit comments and were then reverted by several different users, assuming that the edits had been done either in error or as vandalism. Fasach Nua would then revert these edits with the edit comment 'WP:PROVEIT'. When users tried to communicate with Fasach Nua about his reversions, he waved policy in a vague manner and expected them to justify their 'WP:POV' inclusions when they had been restoring content that they had not originally added and had not been justified in it's removal.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Edit Warring of Germany national football team
- 1st Edit 08:05, 11 August 2008
- 1st Revert 18:16, 11 August 2008
- 2nd Revert 18:28, 11 August 2008
- 3rd Revert 08:16, 12 August 2008
- 4th Revert 13:41, 13 August 2008
- 5th Revert 15:44, 13 August 2008
Edit Warring of Italy national football team
- 1st Edit 19:29, 11 August 2008
- 1st Revert 19:55, 11 August 2008
- 2nd Revert 20:03, 11 August 2008
- 3rd Revert 20:13, 11 August 2008
- 4th Revert 20:49, 11 August 2008
- 5th Revert 08:10, 12 August 2008
- 6th Revert 07:57, 13 August 2008
- 7th Revert 14:03, 13 August 2008

See also the histories of the following pages for more examples:

Finland national football team, Sweden national football team, Lithuania national football team, France national football team, Club América, Northern Ireland national football team, Serbia national football team, Czech Republic national football team, Russia national football team, Netherlands national football team, Republic of Ireland national football team, Brazil national football team, Ecuador national football team

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

Efforts at discussion:

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Aaron carass (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Why ^{review me!} 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bocafan76 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I believe that what User Fasach Nua is doing is disruptive, an doesn't lead to anything good, plus he seems to be very closed minded to others, an example of this is the fact that the User E P try to implement guidelines in the Argentina national football team, notable players section yet he doesn't seem pleased by it as this example shows. Now he has move on to other sports as well, like American Football example, and Baseball example , something must be done as he doesn't seem interested in making things better, the only thing he seems to care about is being right an everybody else wrong. I wonder who is next in his list? hollywood stars?? Bocafan76 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

MickMacNee (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC) He is edit warring and being disruptive, these issues are entirely separate from discussion over the content of the sections[reply]
Wiggy! Unnecessarily pointy and tendentious editor. Very narrowly interprets policy and ignores all other views. Each of the policies and guidelines that FN cites puts forward methods for dealing with an issue and emphasizes the community aspect of the project including the use of consensus and non-confrontational means for dealing with potential problems. He consistently ignores rules for civil behaviour, setting his "mission" above goodwill and positive approaches to improving articles. A unilateral and unresponsive approach is not acceptable. Wiggy! (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RGTraynor: I have some comments of my own that echo those of others, which will be noted below. RGTraynor 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I am a liitle suprised that User:Aaron carass didnt seem, to feel WP:VERIFY was an appliciatble policy, but anyway....

The issue of WP:POV in soccer realted artiles has been ongoing for a long time, I raised it a number of times and was ignored:

[1]

[2]

The MoS was modifed Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/National_teams

As the WP:FOOTY was uninterested in discussing the subject I taged some sections as OR, ( per the MOS! ) (I've been told silence equals WP:CONSENSUS)

This got some reaction, the subject was briefly discussed,

[3],

but User:MickMacNee and User:Grant.Alpaugh trolled the thread and killed off the discussion.

Following the archiving of that discussion, with a seemingly disinterested WP:FOOTY, I again took it upon myslef to deal with the problem, this again aroused the interest of the WP:FOOTY community

[4],

and again they failed to address the issue.

I then removed some section, which leads us here, and yes the issue is being discussed again, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Fasach_Nua_.28again.29.

Yes my actions are in violation of WP:POINT, and I shouldnt be put in a position of having to edit in this manor, but as it seems it is the only way to get encylopedic standards in these articles is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, then as unplesant as it is, that is what I have done. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Outcome

All player lists within WP:FOOTY comply with WP:VERIFY so User:Fasach Nua does not feel the need to remove or tag them Fasach Nua (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

Outside view by User:Corvus cornix

Fasach Nua has been trying to come up with some sort of logic behind whatever makes a person "notable" as a representative of their country in football, and yet he seems to be rebuffed in his efforts. WP:V requires that the people responsible for listing the players indicate what it is that makes them "notable" other than the fact that they were born in, played for, or were a citizen of a particular country, and happened to play football. And yet those who are accusing Fasach Nua of bad faith are themselves unable to come up with a standard. I support Fasach Nua's actions. Corvus cornix_talk 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

The revert-warring is certainly ugly, but it always takes two to tango, and I must agree with Corvus cornix that Fasach has a point about the content dispute. Also, I notice that when two out of three "attempts to solve the dispute" are links to threads that start off with spurious "vandalism" warnings, it's a clear case there's something wrong with the attitude of the accusers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reasonable description Fasach Nua (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:MickMacNee

There are two problems that Fasach Nua has, edit warring, and an unwillingness to accept his opinion is not the truth when faced with opposition. It is quite wrong to suggest that these sections require concrete specifications for inclusion, and it should be noted that Fasach Nua has not engaged in any of the attempts at WP:FOOTY to create one, which was happening many months ago. His preferred attitude was to resume edit warring and mass tagging, when it was clear the constructive path was to attempt a centralised discussion in good faith. This did not happen from Fasach once it became clear that people did not accept his interpretation of WP:PROVEIT versus other peoples use of WP:COMMONSENSE arguments. The fact is, the issue is currently deadlocked between the community and Fasach, with many people wasting a lot of time because of him, with no progress, and no let up from Fasach.

In my opinon, no overarching guideline will likely be forthcoming as it is a matter for each team individually as to what constitutes a famous player, but it is a fact that these sections even now are semi-self correcting, obviously unwarranted inclusions are eventually removed. This does not therefore result in a situation that all sections required to be tagged/removed on the say so of one edit warring editor, which is what Fasach periodically attempts to do, when not warring over NFCC or his other personal wikipedia battles. By the definition of WP:CONSENSUS, Fasach has no legitimate claim to make that these sections are not appropriate for wikipedia. And he does his case no good when he makes clear he thinks the sections, which have stood for years, are "nonsense" [5]. MickMacNee (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by User:x42bn6

Having reviewed the WP:ANI thread, I take User:Fasach Nua's stance, although I do not think he/she has acted appropriately. I believe the dispute is centralised on the inclusion of "Notable players" section(s) in articles.

My stance is that in order to be included on these lists, these players must have been "notable" or "famous" for their exploits on their national teams. Names that spring to mind would be Ryan Giggs for Wales ([6]) or Pelé for Brazil (various). I'm not in favour of using caps, captaincy or goals for this as we are dealing with WP:V here - it would be WP:POV, in my opinion, to use this criteria to declare people famous for their national team - which I believe is the essence of WP:PROVEIT, rather than the letter.

I do not believe there is consensus for inclusion of the lists as User:Aaron carass states. Consensus is based upon the strength of the arguments, rather than the number or people "shouting". On User talk:Fasach Nua#Edit warring of Italy national football team, for example, SoWhy's arguments for inclusion appear to be based upon Fasach Nua's "vague policy waving" and a strange statement saying Fasach Nua's WP:PROVEIT argument was "disproved" here. I do not think this is so, even if the !vote went against Fasach Nua's !vote. Simply because consensus is about multiple people and as the closing Administrator said, there was a weak consensus to keep. In addition to "vague policy waving" and "disproven WP:PROVEIT" arguments, there included a threat of WP:3RR. WP:3RR is not an excuse to keep things at a status quo - WP:3RR is to stop edit-warring, and a threat of WP:3RR used against someone is poor judgement. Content arguments should be used to justify content issues, not WP:3RR.

I have yet to see an argument from the "other side" that isn't 3RR, COMMONSENSE or various other capital letter Wikipedia shortcuts.

From what I see, there's only one person who's making a content argument and that is Fasach Nua's WP:PROVEIT.

Which unfortunately brings me to Fasach Nua's conduct. Wikipedia is difficult in the sense that more often than not, you believe you bring The Truth^TM and that Everyone Else Is Wrong^TM. I think Fasach Nua has been dismissive of other peoples' complaints, has violated 3RR and has generally been disruptive. There is no excuse for being disruptive as it allows others to use this against you, as has been shown here.

@MickMacNee: "Fasach has no legitimate claim to make that these sections are not appropriate for wikipedia" is the essence of Fasach Nua's arguments. WP:PROVEIT and WP:V mean that anyone who wants to include something needs to have a justification, not the other way round. As Jimbo Wales states here:

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

In conclusion:

While Fasach Nua is correct, he/she should not be disruptive lest people jump on this and use it against him/her;
Inclusion of information needs justification;
Consensus is not determined by numbers, but arguments; and
WP:DTTR

tl;dr

Users who endorse this summary:

endosrse everything except ,"There is no excuse for being disruptive...", disruption is undesireable, regretable, but unfortunetly it was called for, a dozen edits over two articles isnt extreme Fasach Nua (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you allow me to comment, I just wanted to point out a few things. My English is not perfect but I was convinced that the 3RR-warning is not a threat. I just wanted to point out to FN that he/she breached it and that someone might block him/her for it. It's of course no content argument, but I was not really trying to argue about the inclusion of those sections. Also, my link to this discussion was not based on the fact that I wanted to use it as an argument but rather to point out that just saying "WP:PROVEIT" without being willing to discuss it will not work. It has not here and that's why we are here, isn't it? So, to keep it short: I did not argue about FN's edits as such (merely pointing out possible reasons why others might think otherwise) but tried to stop him/her from edit warring and to get him/her to start discussing it. I am sorry if it sounded like anything else, that was not my intention. Regards So Why 08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from SandyGeorgia

I have not looked at the dispute which gave rise to this RfC; I have observed Fasach Nua's participation at WP:FAC. Fasash Nua works in the difficult area of enforcement of image policy: a thankless job which attracts hostility and attack and is an area that seems to bring detractors to any editor who attempts work in the area. In my observations at FAC, Fasach Nua is doing a fine job, makes accurate and reasonable appraisals of images that are often backed by other reviewers, has several times avoided taking the bait when personally attacked, and backs off when consensus indicates. I've had no problem.

Users who endorse this summary:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My interactions with Fasach Nua have been equally limited but equally positive. —Giggy 08:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from RGTraynor

My own take on Fasach Nua's style comes from the Calgary Flames article, where he has engaged in a tendentious edit war over team logos, a type of image that by law is permissible to reproduce for non-commercial uses. On September 6, he added an excessive use of NF image template, without edit summary or explanation; over the next three days, he made six reverts to the template without edit summary or explanation, despite numerous requests either to do so or to state the policy stating explicitly how many NF images were permissible in an article. In like fashion, he's done the same thing at the same time on the New York Yankees article.

His next step was startling: despite the article being deemed good enough to be September 5th's TFA, on the 8th he filed a FAC on it - the first time he proffered any explanation for his actions - which was closed a day later with the exhortation that Fasach take the dispute to the article talk page. Even more startling, just a few minutes later, Fasach filed a second FAC, which was speedily closed, and he was warned by an admin for disruption and advised (so far, fruitlessly) to seek consensus for his actions on the talk page.

Today, he filed for deletion on three of the images with rationales like "an obsolete unused logo that does not significantly increase the readers understanding of the topic." (Well, yes, historical logos are indeed obsolete and unused, the way they are for the thousands of historical flags, corporate logos, maps of now-vanished nations, etc., displayed in the appropriate articles).

So far, his forum shopping has been met with just about unanimous consensus against him in every venue. The concept of consensus means that sometimes it will be against you, and the thing to do in that instance is to lose gracefully and move on. Fasach plainly is one of those for whom he is right, everyone else is wrong, and that's that. My own take is that whatever "fine" work he's done at FAC is completely obscured by his shameless use of FAC as a battleground for WP:POINT nominations.

Yes, image policy enforcement is a thankless one, but like everyone else on tough jobs (I do AfD, vandal patrol and NPP), he is a volunteer, no one forces him to do it, and it is incumbent on him to know what he's doing, show some sensibilities for the areas into which he's barging waving an axe, take the trouble to explain his actions and be willing to discuss those actions (and potential solutions) on talk pages. I've yet to see any of the above from him, and from the previous RfC and his talk page history, it seems that he's been editing in this agressive, uncommunicative style for a good long while. Whatever his virtues might be, this is a liability to the project, and indulging in WP:POINT to try to get his way, somehow, any way, is completely unacceptable behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:

Pretty much sums up my opinions on the matter. He seems to refuse to discuss issues. He needs to learn to communicate. -Djsasso (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reso lute 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a good summary. _Talk Islander 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an interested observer at Calgary Flames, I agree. He doesn't know when to quit. ccwaters (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from Resolute

Like RGTraynor, my experiences with FN arise from the current debate on the Calgary Flames article. As that is not the focus of this particular RFC, I won't add any additional descriptions of it beyond RG's explaination. Like MickMacNee, I am troubled by this user's insistence that his opinion is policy, especially as it pertains to NFCC, and his complete unwillingness to discuss issues.

From my limited interactions with FN, I do believe that he honestly believes he is doing the right thing. That is something that should be commended. He wants to improve the encyclopedia, and this needs to be encouraged. However, when his preferred version is opposed by consensus, he seems to resort to tendentious editing to try and force his opinions on others. WRT the Calgary Flames edit problems, He's racked up an FAR that was speedy closed, a second that was deleted, a 3RR warning and three images sent to IfD that are all currently showing overwhelming keep. And yet, at no point did he ever make an attempt at discussing his issues. If he had, he would have found that we were willing to address his concerns. Patience is a virtue, and this user seems to lack it completely.

That he is in conflict with another wikiproject is not surprising to me, nor is the fact that this is his second RFC. I would add WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT as applicable guidelines and policies, as in my experience, these are also key issues. This is a user who can be a great editor for us, especially in the more difficult realms such as image tagging and patrol. I think a mentor might help him greatly, especially in learning when to accept consensus is against him and in collaborating with other editors to improve this project as a whole.

Users who endorse this summary:

A mentor would probably help if he would accept others opinions. -Djsasso (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.