Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/GRider

Moved from original request[edit]

Perhaps a ban from VfD? Snowspinner 15:31, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know; his nominations are often of articles that are valid candidates for deletion. Perhaps clearly give admins discretion to block GRider for limited periods if he makes nominations that don't comply with the deletion policy? Or impose a cap on the number of nominations he may make per day? Maybe both of those.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find it telling that he didn't even respond to RfC #2. I would recommend expanding the above from "nominations that don't comply with the deletion policy" to "nominations that don't comply with the published instructions to VfD", since this seems to be the bigger problem. Ultimately, it's the fact that he doesn't appear to support his own nominations which seems to be the killer. Chris 20:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Giving GRider some time away from VfD won't hurt Wikipedia. There isn't exactly a shortage of nominations. --iMb~Mw 21:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amen to that. I suggest either a ban on Vfd, or some sort of restriction (perhaps being supervised by other editors, or being allowed to vote but not nominate, etc.). Meelar (talk) 00:54, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

VFD's battling average is 75 articles per day. I think giving him a break from VFD and finding something else to do for awhile would be better. Although, it is scary that he ignored TFD consensus and continued to using those small vote tally boxes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see no evidence that GRider is a productive contributor. Whatever creative contributions he makes (and I am aware of none) are undoubtedly outweighed by his daily sabotage of VfD. His sole occupation, as far as I can see, consists of nominating tons of pages for deletion and, in lieu of a reason, offering a cut-and-paste rhetorical question ("Is this notable to you?" or somesuch). He so despises the mere concept of VfD that I don't think we should ever let him nominate or vote again, unless he submits to an actual, comprehensive discussion. Otherwise, he'll simply continue to clog up the VfD page with his Socratic nominations and harassment of those who vote differently than he does. I would suggest immediately imposing a ban on his VfD privileges. If he decides to be reasonable and talk, we can always unblock him. If he chooses to remain blocked, I for one won't lose any sleep over it. If he really wants the privilege of using Wikipedia, he'll just have to swallow his pride and start discussing this on our terms. If he can't be counted on to follow the rules, how is he any better than a vandal? Binadot 19:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(not part of original request) The funny thing is, if he stated an opinion rather than just asking questions in his nominations, they'd be exactly like every other VfD nomination with "Not notable" or "Fancruft" as the rationale: the kickoff of a lengthy debate, often heated, usually referencing Google results at least once, on whether or not the subject is notable enough for inclusion. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To me that seems to be very constructive and within the ideals of the wiki project. Klonimus 21:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never said it wasn't; I just find it amusing that there are so many complaints about his behavior, when all he's doing is exactly what every other non-notable fancruft hunter does. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But fancruft hunters do it because they explicitly want it removed from Wikipedia; GRider doesn't really care whether it goes or stays, he just wants to prove a point about schools. If he had started making nominations with "I personally don't think this should be deleted, but I'm aware that there are different views within the community and I'm interested to hear what the consensus is", he wouldn't have had nearly so many problems. If he had funneled his energies into getting a good schools policy agreed to, he'd be happy now. Instead, he's just being deliberately obstinate and ordering others to "Discuss" in his best school marm voice. And @Klonimus - provoking "lengthy heated debate" isn't constructive; promoting consensus is. Slac speak up! 05:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD template edit summaries[edit]

I have described GRider's use of edit summaries when adding VfD templates in Evidence. Briefly, he was marking the addition of VfD templates to articles as a minor edit with no edit summary (or, later, a number of "googles"). He has very recently started to add clear edit summaries, and stopped marking the addition of VfD templates as minor. Of course, this is only since yesterday (25 March) and so far he has only nominated two articles for deletion. In the spirit of assuming good faith, I hope he will continue to mark such edits clearly.

In the spirit of common sense, however, I would suggest ArbCom implement an appropriate parole, and lay out specific sanctions to be applied if GRider returns to marking VfD templates as minor edits. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Ballot-Stuffing"[edit]

Irregardless of the problems with the rest of GRider's behavior, I consider his attempts to raise awareness among interested users about specific votes to be in good faith. I don't think that notifying interested users about a vote should nullify their votes. I would like to point out that there are no policies in place to that effect. Furthermore, I would like to point out that GRider's notifications are quite reasonably phrased:

"More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk"

Note that this is issue advocacy. It does not tell users to vote a specific way, although it does mention facts relevant to a specific opinion.

Now, you may say this is unfair because he only informs fellow inclusionists. You may say this is stacking the vote. I say it is counter-balancing it. After all, deletionists may spend much of their time on VfD, while inclusionists may spend more of their time on Wikipedia actually improving articles.

More seriously, GRider notifies the users who requested to be notified. A good solution to this particular problem would be to require him, if he continues to do such mass notifications, to notify all users who request to be notified (putting them all on his list). Any deletionists that want to receive his notification of school votes could simply sign up. (Although I would also request that users who read all of VFD on a regular basis not sign up just to bog GRider down. That wouldn't be nice.) --L33tminion | (talk) 01:49, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

If inclusionists are motivated by general principles that material appearing on VfD should remain in the Wikipedia, of course they will be frequenting VfD just as much as deletionists. User:Kappa is one inclusionist who does so. Inasmuch as GRider's arguments have any validity, the one valid point he makes is that whether an article gets deleted or kept often depends on which editors are frequenting VfD at the time. To claim that deletionists are more interested in deleting articles than improving existing content is, I think, a bit of a long bow to draw, and moreover, is quite irrelevant to the question of GRider's behaviour.

In this instance, this is quite clearly an example issue advocacy - "organic growth" must be GRider's single favourite phrase, and of course, is fundamentally opposed to deleting the article in question. "Encouraging organic growth" is pretty obviously encouraging "keep" votes on VfD.

Thirdly, users such as User:Iasson are confirmed trolls. Notifying them - whether they request it or not - is likely to be regarded poorly within the community.

As for the question of "counter-balancing": One of the problem with GRider's practice, whether you consider it ballot-box stuffing or not, is the fact that it causes escalation and a vicious cycle. The next time a deletionist sees his/her pet school VfD overrun by inclusionists, what is he/she likely to do? Muster up a deletionist posse, of course! That sort of thing is highly undesirable, and, I would suggest, is the main reason why GRider's talk-page quests are frowned on. There is, ultimately, a line in the sand to draw - "associations" (ie. factions) of deletionists or inclusionists are acceptable because they're essentially meeting places or clubs for like-minded individuals. To use a local elections analogy, it's like maintaining a noticeboard or a discussion group that individuals can visit and talk about on their own volition. What GRider's doing is the equivalent of knocking on doors and stuffing mailboxes - activity that, there seems to be a general view, Wikipedians do not want. Slac speak up! 02:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, my above comments regarding deletionists were meant to be good natured ribbing, not serious criticism. After all, I spend a good amount of time on VFD myself.

Second, I agree that GRider supports inclusion of articles. That's obvious. However, sharing facts relevant to one's opinion is not the same as pressuring people to vote in accordance with that opinion.

Third, it should be acceptable for an editor to communicate Wikipedia related information to any other editor, whether other people think they are a troll or not. GRider should not be punished for anyone else's actions (including Iasson's), and he should be allowed to communicate with any editor he chooses to communicate with. If Iasson's actions are a problem, he should be the one up for arbitration.

He is. Let's be frank about this: communicating to a user who is up for arbitration because of disruption to the VfD voting process in order to encourage him to engage in the VfD voting process is hardly likely to be interpreted as a sign of good faith.

I don't necessarily know if it's "Wikipedia-related" info. If it's article-related, then of course it can be communicated to anyone. If it's about the structures and practices of Wikipedia, then the appropriate place is Meta. If it's about changing/establishing a policy, which basically is what he wants to do, then the onus is on him to go about gaining consensus to develop a schools policy he likes. Consensus is more important than "the numbers". It's highly improper to go soliciting votes to convert a pre-existing policy or process to his own aims. See m:polls are evil and m:Don't vote on everything. Slac speak up! 23:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Forth, I'll agree that VFD does include some vicious cycles, but I'd say that's a problem with VFD, not GRider. To extend your analogy, GRider is not doing the equivalent of "knocking on doors and stuffing mailboxes" like in a local election because he's only knocking on doors and leaving fliers where the residents requested such notification. There are quite a few towns where leaving fliers at every house as part of an election campaign is illegal, but leaving fliers at the houses of people who specifically requested them is not.

But my point is that this is Wikipedia, not an electorate. There are limits to how far the community wants vote-canvassing to go. My argument is that GRider is outside community thinking on this, a fact that he tacitly acknowledges. For example, in contrast to you, who are prepared to defend his actions publicly, he construes any reference to them as a "personal attack" and removes them: [1]. This is in addition to treating the arbitration process with contempt by not deigning to make anything other than "minor" edits. Slac speak up! 23:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I talked to GRider, and he stated that he would be happy to notify any user that requests such notifications. However, GRider seems to be planning to use his talk subpage as a "bulletin board" from now on and leave off writing individual messages to interested editors. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:29, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is that the flow-on effects from such a thing are undesirable, and users are right to question them. The "bulletin board" of which you speak already exists on m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. Many, inclusionist and deletionist alike, would be sorely troubled by the intrusion of such a thing into the Wikipedia namespace. The idea that mustering the numbers is the way to "win" policy discussions is diametrically opposed to the ideals of consensus. If this is already a problem with VfD, then GRider's actions have done everything possible to exacerbate it. Slac speak up! 23:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that GRider for his schoolwatch only contacts those people that asked him to be contacted. After all, that would have required him to first advertise said program and get people interested in it, and there's no sign of that. Rather, he seems to just have compiled a list of all people that voted 'keep' on a high school in the past couple of months. Hence, Lasson's inclusion.
But anyway, the point here really is that, as Slac said, this causes a vicious cycle. It causes VfD to be bogged down by daily repetitive shouting arguments about particular schools. VfD should not be about voting, but about discussion. GRider's ploy merely draws in more votes to drown out the discussion. I'm not convinced that there is a way to resolve the high school issue, but I am convinced that encouraing factionalism is counterproductive to resolution. Radiant_* 08:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed here. Some people might call it issue advocacy, however, there is a big difference between raising awareness amongst everyone on your street about an upcoming public meeting with an important issue to decide, and telling only the people on your street that you know hold your preferred opinion to go to said meeting and swing the outcome. It's drowning out the sensible discussions by people who mostly know what they're talking about with hordes of people who insist that everything must stay and nothing be deleted, without being willing to discuss the matter, or participate in a consensus discussion - get enough people involved, and you don't need to, since you can force a majority. There are good reasons why tightly-targeted election campaigns are illegal. Chris 19:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GRider editing evidence page[edit]

GRider for some reason chose to edit my contributions to the Evidence page. I have restored my contributions to their original format. Curiously, he just duplicated some of the sections I had already added. His edits were unsigned, marked as minor, and without an edit summary—which is perhaps appropriate, given that the section was addressing his penchant for marking major edits as minor and leaving off edit summaries. Thryduulf has already moved GRider's edits to GRider's section of the evidence page. Anyway, I left a note on his (GRider's) talk page discouraging him from making further edits to other editors' evidentiary contributions. Hopefully he will refrain. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments[edit]

I would like to add that although I support the idea of providing coverage to schools on WP (I am listed as a "Colleague" on User:GRider/Colleagues), I don't think ballot-stuffing is a brilliant idea. --JuntungWu 04:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)JuntungWu

Polarising Wikipedia and Preventing the Reaching of Consensus[edit]

I think this is the key issue here: GRider is pushing a particular standpoint on the VfD process, using Wikipedia mechanisms to do so. GRider's behaviour would imply that (s)he sees him/herself as an activist, campaigning to change people's point of view.

While I may agree with some of the points GRider is trying to make (I think I would see myself as an "Inclusionist"), the process by which (s)he is making these points is not the correct one. The VfD policy page has a talk page, where the policy is discussed. GRider ought to be discussing policy there, not trying to make de facto policy changes by implementing them en masse him/herself.

I do think GRider has been paying some attention to the many criticisms of his/her behaviour (for example, (s)he has ceased marking VfD nominations as minor edits). However, I am concerned that (s)he has simply been finding new ways to carry out the crusade (for example, merges when VfD nominations fail, nominating articles for FA after VfD nominations fail, creating user lists in his/her user namespace when criticised for spamming other user's pages).

I'm not sure what the best response would be to this on the part of ArbCom, as the banning of specific activities on GRider's part may not prevent him/her from continuing to use Wikipedia to prove a point.

--Kieran 11:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Chaos[edit]

GRider is persistent in renaming the lists of various things in Star Wars. He feels it necessary to rename Creatures of Star Wars to List of Star Wars creatures, and does the same with similar lists. They're really not lists if they only have a few entries with pictures. Is any of this necessary, or is he trying to prove another point? See Also: User_talk:GRider#Star Wars Articles (Comment by Meelar: here's a diff). -- Riffsyphon1024 17:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not this is a list is a matter of semantics. Personally I do believe it is a list, and a very good one at that because it explains each entry. However, I would never call an article 'list of <foo>' because it clogs up alphabetical indexing. Radiant _* 08:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Note that GRider has now blanked his talk page. IMO, the lack of substantive communication from GRider is a larger problem than most of his edits. Meelar (talk) 02:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. This matter should never have come to an RfAr, and would never have but for his intransigence and incommunicativeness. Slac speak up! 02:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but I also believe he's pushing WP:POINT too far. Then again several people have pointed out the flipside of his actions, and he never really responded to any. Radiant _* 08:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

To remove confusion, I'm in agreement. I think it's GRider's fault entirely that things have progressed this far. Slac speak up! 09:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to point something out to me, Meelar? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all. Just making note of it. All I'm saying is that reasonable people could disagree over whether or not that's a list. The only reason there's a problem is because GRider has refused to discuss things or respond, even when asked politely. I just wish that GRider would respond on talk pages, rather than forcing this whole process to go forward. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 17:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind that, Meelar. I didn't know why you provided the link to his GRider's history until I realized it was in response to his wiping clean of his talk page. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

You would think it was only to create an archive, but then it seems he's hiding information that could be damaging to him. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Not really comment on GRider though I do think that in a wider sense s/he has been disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. What I really want to know is can we move those Star Wars articles back to their previous names, so they can be nicely alphabetical? Wikipedia:List is pretty clear on the different types of lists and these articles aren't really lists - I think of them as omnibus articles. I asked GRider about the moves on GRiders talk page, s/he answered my comment by talking about creating uniformity but they were already uniformity in the titles as <whatever> of Star Wars, it was only List of Star Wars races that was different and I had comment on the talk page of that page to have that moved in the interest of uniformity!. -- Lochaber 12:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Anyway GRider has since created a category called Star Wars lists and put them all in there, I don't know that this was necessary, they were already in categories like Category:Star Wars weapons and since I don't think they are lists then obviously I don't think the title is appropriate but then I'm not the boss of the SW articles ;-) any comments? -- Lochaber 12:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're not the boss, but neither is he. You should be able to reach some consensus about this on the relevant articles' talk pages. If you can get two or three Star Wars contributors to agree with you, you can safely move them back. If you want my personal opinion, a 'category of lists related to <foo>' is superfluous. By the same reasoning, anything that's an article could be renamed to 'article about <foo>' :) Radiant_* 13:17, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - GRider has gone too far. Delete this new List Category and rename all the articles' names he/she/it's changed. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:42, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't actually know how to move those pages back and preserve edit history, as far as I'm aware it was easy enough for GRider to move them in the first place because the page names that they were moved to didn't exist but it's not as simple to move them back b/c those pages were recreated as redirects? -- Lochaber 13:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - If all that's there is a redirect pointing to the page you're moving it from, and the redirect has exactly one edit in its history, anyone can move it back. Otherwise, list it on WP:RM or bug your friendly neighborhood admin. —Korath (Talk) 13:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Clone?[edit]

Sorry if this sounds paranoid, but User:Klonimus is a new account as of last week, that has done little else than vote on VfD entries so far (somewhat unusual for a newbie), in a style rather similar to GRider's [2]. This may well be a coincidence, but could someone please check the IP address to see what's going on here? Radiant _* 09:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? -- Riffsyphon1024 16:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

This comment [3] made by Klonimus (about entryism), plus his unusual behaviour, leads me to suspect that he may be a "fellow traveller" recruited by GRider from elsewhere. calS !pu kaeps 08:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I stuck that on my Userpage, after I made a minor addition to Dominionism which was soon deleted moments later. I wanted to save my bon mot so I added it right after the very kind boilerplate greeting I received from a candidate for adminship. Klonimus 10:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, But I am very real. And I am not a sockpuppet. But I am very sympathtic to GRider vs the angry deletionists.

GRider is a Dadaist, he is fighting the deletionist tendency with deletionism: and all this inside of established wikipedia methods. It's brilliant, and its working. Klonimus

So you would support using "inclusionism in fighting the angry inclusionists?" Wikipedia isn't a death match, nobody should be trying to "win", it's an encyclopedia. Slac speak up! 20:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's impossible to use "inclusionism in fighting the angry inclusionists?" You cant fight positivism with more positivism. However you can fight negativism with negativism. Klonimus 02:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's quite possible to use inclusionism to fight inclusionists: Someone could just go around canvassing keep votes on articles that should be deleted. (Thereby causing the inclusionists to question their beliefs).

I will admit that what Grider is doing is a fairly well-thought out, and effective, campaign to manipulate policy in the Wikipedia ... A course of action which is explicitly banned.

A far more important point is that neither "inclusionists" nor "deletionists" should exist: The VfD process is one which should take individual article's merits into account, within a framework of consensus-built policy, and members' own common sense. From what I've seen of the votes on the VfD page, this is usually the case: While a few article classes' inclusion or deletion is often controversial, discussion around these classes is gradually resulting in the building of guidelines for deletion of these articles by consensus, for example WP:BEEFSTEW.

Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, and a creative commons project. It is not a platform for political experimentation, or human manipulation, however brilliant attempts at those may be.

--Kieran 10:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, yes GRider may have done some nonkosher things in the past, but he has stopped Right now the thing thats annoying people is that he is concentrating inclusionist interest into the VfD Process. I dont think that that is particularly wrong. Klonimus 07:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW: If you look at my history of edits. You will see that I have been very involved with the following articles. I do not just do VfD.

Town gas This article will eventually be the parent for a Catagory:Manufactured Gas. All 100% new material, this will be the definative treatment of this subject. Better than the 1911 Britanica
Culture_of_Life "Therefore Choose Life" this is my philosophy and this is why I am so opposed to deletionism.
Vodka_and_Coke I like my with Blackcurrant Vodka, and a shot of Creme de Cassis

After I started working on Town gas, I moseyed over the VfD page, did some VfD's but pretty soon, I was annoyed by what GRider was annoyed about. A cadre of deletionists who mindlessly vote Delete with the herd; rather than evaluating each case on the merits. Klonimus

I am sure that my Comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Walkers-ABB Electric Multiple Unit pointing out that this was notable, prevented a storm of dittohead Deletes followed by a possible return to sanity, after one or two people defended the article.

And you're well within your rights to make comment on anything up for deletion. But actually and definitively stating at some point that "X should be deleted because. . ." and "Y should be kept because. . ." is not what GRider has been doing in his nominations. Slac speak up! 20:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grider either votes for something, and expresses his justification or else deletes things using an NPOV, while presenting the issues involved. I think that is commendable. Klonimus 02:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NB: The time stamps are a tad off, My initial comment was made "Klonimus 08:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

Klonimus 10:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should add that I am getting extremely sick and tired to deletionism being declared equivalent to book-burning, or now, murder. It reminds me of Ayn Rand's dismissal of any opposing political philosophy as "looterism", and like that, smacks of a desire to avoid intellectual engagement on the issue. Slac speak up! 20:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no "herd". Everyone on Vfd votes to their own accord. I vote based on what I see within the article, usually proof of notability. On schools, I will use the BEEFSTEW test rather than the Google test. I feel this way is more accurate on that matter. For seemingly non-notable science fiction, I have promoted a move to other wikis if it is not Wikipedia-worthy. I could go on forever explaining how Wikipedians are not cows, but you should have known that already. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Deletionism is not the issue here; what irritates people (including inclusionists like myself) is the lack of communication and disruption that GRider brings to the table. Meelar (talk) 22:57, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I find this factionalism disturbing. It is far too easy to say "so-and-so disagrees with GRider and therefore is a deletionist and deletionism is evil". The word 'deletionist' is generally considered derogatory, and very few people actually are deletionists in the commonly-used sense of the word. Radiant _* 10:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:G Rider[edit]

A vandal impersonating GRider is currently running aroung mass-nominating schools for deletion. Can somebody block them, please? calS !pu kaeps 02:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that was pretty immature. There's also a User:GRuder that's doing roughly the same. This is his contribs log... [4]. Can we get an IP scan on this vandal? Radiant_* 10:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- So who are all these other impersonations? Disciples of his? Alter-egos? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:56, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - Is there a way of checking that? By IP address, maybe. I could hazard a guess or two but that would be wild speculation so I'm not going to do that. But the culprit is highly likely to also have a regular account, and deserves to have that account temporarily blocked for vandalism. Radiant _* 10:00, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Schoolwatch[edit]

User:GRider/Schoolwatch is, according to GRider, a WikiProject to increase the quality of high school articles. Consensus tends to agree with that. However, if it is a wikiproject, it should be open to input from everybody, just like all WikiProjects. GRider is currently censoring any view presented that does not strictly conform to his [5], on grounds that it would be vandalism to a user page. I believe the solution would be to move this to WikiProject:Schoolwatch, as a unilateral WikiProject is more POV-pushing in violation of WP:POINT.

As a side point, there currently is an ArbCom injunction against GRider editing deletion-related pages, and proposal to extend this for a year. It seems to me that Schoolwatch is clearly deletion-related; thus if GRider is not allowed to edit such, it shouldn't be in his user space.

Radiant _* 10:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

There is ongoing debate about this page; I would suggest reading the discussion on User talk:GRider/Schoolwatch rather than bringing the entire debate to this venue as well. The biggest question to the arbitors is this: is GRider prohibited editing User:GRider/Schoolwatch, which exists on his user page? Even if he only wants to undo the changes made by others to his userspace? It seems weird for myself and Radiant to be able to edit it (which we have done), but not for the user himself. --BaronLarf 15:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point, but could you please convince GRider to answer the questions posed by other people, rather than simply removing them? Asking a person a question obviously means making a change to that person's userspace. Radiant _* 15:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Reaction to Klonimus[edit]

Hi there! Since you don't seem to be responding to your talk page, I hope you can respond here. First, I didn't call you a sockpuppet, I said "This may well be a coincidence, but could someone please check the IP address to see what's going on here?". Second, there is no deletionist agenda at issue here, and regardless of what you think there aren't to my knowledge any deletionists involved. Certainly you wouldn't claim the ArbCom to be that subjective, now would you? And third, GRider's schoolwatch isn't open to the entire community, since he unilaterally removes all edits from people whose opinion doesn't conform to his. In other words, you're polarizing the issue and have missed out on a number of significant details. Radiant _* 07:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not Klonimus is a sock is in any case irrelevant to GRider's conduct. To my knowledge no-one has gone so far as to accuse GRider of sockpuppetry; this RfAr isn't dealing with the question of sockpuppets anyway.

As a member of the ADW I could be one of the deletionists Klonimus is referring to; but other than the obvious points that (1) it's hardly a deletionist clique that's hounding GRider, and (2) attempts to bring factionalism into this are woefully misguided, one thing that bears mentioning is that GRider has made far more VfD nominations than your average deletionist. His conduct isn't disruptive to the "deletionist agenda" - by flooding VfD with nominations and promoting furious fire-fights by nominating controversial articles, it is disruption of VFD, purely and simply. Klonimus, if you wish to present GRider's votes as "encouraging consensus", please provided concrete evidence of this. Slac speak up! 05:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)