Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tennis expert

Something of a reply to Tennis expert's response

Now that Tennis expert has responded to the RFC, I wish I'd waited to post my analysis of the situation, as he brings up several points that I feel I may have missed. To address TE's response point-by-point:

1. I did attempt to resolve this and at least two other disputes directly involving Tennis expert. I've now provided a diff of the most recent attempt to my initial endorsement of the RfC, though it's by no means the only case where I attempted resolution. As a volunteer at WP:EAR I am not obliged to remain neutral when I feel the case does not call for it. Please read WP:EXPECT.
2. The pending arbitration case is immaterial to this dispute, and in fact I believe your continued insistent dredging up of that arbitration case is one of the reasons this RfC needed to be called. This RfC was called as a result of a behavioral dispute. Period.
   1. Untrue. I encouraged Alonso to bring this RfC, at which point he sought assistance in this unfamiliar matter from an involved editor. It's very common for multiple involved editors to collaborate on an RfC.
   2. We are discussing your behavior, not another user's.
   3. See above.
3. Just as a court decision can grant trial precedent on indirectly-related issues, the consensus of which a peer review is suggestive can be applied to other articles, as it seems to have been in the case of Serena Williams. The Hantuchová peer review was conducted by two editors unrelated to this case who both concluded that the Hantuchová article had excessive detail and should be reduced per WP:SS. While this has not yet been done, it's a trivial matter to extend those suggestions to other articles such as Serena Williams.
4. You have disruptively edit warred. Please see my view for links to the Williams page history showing periods in which you engaged in disruptive edit warring.
5. Please provide diffs to prove vandalism by Wikipedia's definition. You've only shown diffs of edits which, at worst, assume bad faith. And considering Alonso's status as a relatively new user, some leeway should be in order when, for example, he suggests a ban prematurely.
6. This statement only goes to show your lack of understanding of how consensus works on Wikipedia. There is consensus to reduce the size of the Williams article via WP:SS, which you have constantly refused to accept. WP:PRESERVE does not apply as the content is going to be preserved in other articles.
7. I am shocked at this assumption of bad faith and accusation of sockpuppetry without any evidence. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alonsornunez/Archive, the CheckUser specifically said that there is no evidence to suggest sockpuppetry in the case of Alonso.
8. You've ignored the point of Ordinary Person's view. The tags you removed were there to address problems with article content, and you removed them without resolving that problem to the satisfaction of the group of editors at Serena Williams.

I am growing more and more convinced that Tennis expert has become a net detriment to work on tennis articles, and unless his behavior radically reforms, a topic ban discussion should be started at WP:AN, possibly coupled with compulsory mentorship. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that Tennis expert revised his response at 12:47 UTC. Upon looking at the changes, I believe every single point I've made above is still valid. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The pending arbitration case is entirely relevant because it bears on the suspect motivations of the four editors who endorsed this proceeding, which not one other editor has endorsed. "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack." Therefore, the behavior and motivations of other editors is relevant in any RFC. Please show where the information deleted from the Serena Williams article appears in another article. Only the career statistics information was forked. Vast amounts of textual and factual material were simply deleted in contravention of WP:PRESERVE, and erroneous information (which I tried to fix) was preserved through edit warring by Alonsornunez. I removed the tag and revised the text, which you should have realized had you dispassionately examined the diffs and the discussion. This exemplifies the problem I have with your consistent lack of impartiality and thoroughness. Nothing in WP:SS contradicts WP:PRESERVE. Please provide the exact diffs of where I disruptively edit warred. And while you're at it, please provide the diffs of Alonsornunez et al. edit warring in the same article. Finally, a peer review has nothing whatsoever to do with a trial or trial precedents, and it's strange for you to argue otherwise. Even Wikipedia arbitration decisions have no precedential value. Tennis expert (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the arbitration case is not relevant. This is not an abuse of the DR process; it is not a personal attack, it is not harassment, and you have provided no direct evidence to support either. Your procedural objection to this RfC is simply incorrect.

The problem isn't that WP:PRESERVE and WP:SS contradict. The problem is your understanding of WP:PRESERVE is erroneous- please see my recommendations for the Andy Murray article, specifically where I show that WP:PRESERVE in fact supports the removal of content to fork articles.

You're right, though, that the content removed has not yet been moved to any fork articles. However, I would argue that per WP:DEADLINE, those fork articles can wait. The information is preserved in the edit history and references which were used to introduce that data to the article.

Tennis expert, like I said in my view, I acknowledge that you're quite astute when it comes to tennis, and I do agree with you on a number of points (e.g., that the content from these articles should be preserved, or the nomenclature for the Miami Masters articles). However, what I disagree with is your approach to editing and your approach to finding consensus. If instead of revert warring, you'd just discussed the changes, I'd be able to support you. If you'd called a content RfC when it looked like you weren't getting through to the other editors, I'd be able to support you. Honestly, even if you had edit warred, but you hadn't continually brought in the arbitration case after being asked not to, I could support you. But, here we are. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

About the forking, none of the editors in question has ever said that they intended to fork the deleted material. In fact, The Rambling Man has said just the opposite despite being reminded about WP:PRESERVE, dubiously citing the good article and feature article review process. And from previous discussions on the Serena Williams talk page, Alfonsornunez and other members of that group were aware of WP:PRESERVE but to date have made no effort to fork the deleted material. Aside from all this, the Serena Williams article never needed forking as it was never "too long" per Wikipedia guidelines. I am surprised that you said you were prepared to support me. You've been pushing an RFC on me for some time, well before any of the Serena Williams edits in question ever happened. Yet, you continued to become immediately involved in editor assistance requests initiated by Alfonsornunez, which presumes that the responder would have some impartiality and which you plainly do not have. Finally, I've been very clear about why I cite the arbitration evidence, here and elsewhere. The Rambling Man in particular continues to exhibit the exact kinds of behavior that have been so thoroughly documented in the arbitration case. Whenever he uses disruption to influence other editors, especially inexperienced editors, and attempts to foster an unconstructive and "us versus them" editing environment, his past history is clearly relevant and material. Those editors need to know what's going on. Tennis expert (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea why you think I select or even look at editor's experience levels. After all, the only editor I have ever known to actively discriminate against an editor as a result of his age is User:Tennis expert. Perhaps we could ask the editors in question whether they've been bullied into submission by me or not. And as I've asked below, there is no "us vs them". It just appears to be Tennis expert versus the rest of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to what Tennis expert is trying to infer by this statement of Rambling Man's "influence" in regards to new editors (and here I am of course assuming that he is talking about me). The Rambling Man, as well as the other editors involved in the Serena Williams article, have been nothing but helpful and encouraging, the process has been nicely collaborative and productive. This cooperation itself seems suspicious to Tennis expert; on 16 Apri in the Serena Williams Talk page he stated that "the truth of my opinions isn't as sexy as the lies they've been telling or as emotionally fulfilling as the man-bonding they've been experiencing" which seems like a strange interpretation of collaboration. As Rambling Man has stated above, there is no "us vs. them" mentality. AlonsornunezComments 14:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, I've said it before, and I'll say it again; as a volunteer at WP:EAR I am in no way obligated to be impartial or neutral in my evaluation of a situation. Even so, disagreeing with you or a manner in which you approach a topic is no evidence of a disruptive bias, which you seem to suggest. If you need evidence of my willingness to treat this situation impartially, I suggest you look at my comments at WT:TENNIS#RfC: Resolving Miami/Key Biscayne Dispute and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 46#Edit War/ Ignoring ongoing discussion.

WP:PRESERVE specifically says that information that belongs in a "finished" article should be retained and tagged if necessary. "Finished article" in this instance is generally accepted to refer to a featured article, or at least an A-class article. The Hantuchová peer review concluded that the excessive detail in that article should be forked, and it's quite reasonable to extend that conclusion to other tennis biographies.

The only way the arbitration case is connected to this RfC is in your continued insistent references to it which have only served to derail constructive content-focused discussion. This behavior alone, as you've been repeatedly asked to focus on content instead of contributors, suggests a real WP:IDHT problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom mention by TE

Tennis expert mentions that I and others have zero credibility as there is evidence against us at an ongoing ArbCom. Just so that nobody get the wrong idea: all "evidence" involving me is presented by Tennis expert. So much for credibility. I may also add that he himself is under scrutiny at the same Arbcom. (Just in case someone actually would pay attention to that.) At that Arbcom he, speaking of the "pathetically transparent effort at "pay back" " as he does, he only started to accuse me after I showed 150+ of some of his edit reversions with an emphasizs that I would NEVER formally accuse anybody at an ArbCom. Few moments later I was accused for everything on this planet. "Pay back"? I think so. In this case: No—everybody was getting on just fine improving the Serena Williams article, until Tennis expert stepped in. Ho hum. --HJensen, talk 12:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you were simply not a high priority when I was providing evidence in the arbitration case. I had always intended to provide evidence about your behavior, and then you assumed a motivation that never actually existed. And, no, not everybody was fine with the radical changes you guys made to the Serena Williams article. Wikipedia policy says that radical changes should be discussed first. Others had previously objected to the chopping of the article (without forking). But notwithstanding all that, you guys proceeded anyway and then edit warred to protect the changes. Alfonsornunez's last edits to the article along with subsequent edits by your group members prove that edit warring is a perfectly acceptable tactic in your group's opinion. That's a problem. Tennis expert (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As for "Sorry, but you were simply not a high priority when I was providing evidence in the arbitration case." I am really pleased. I forgive you. I also thought that 14 edits over two months in accordance with the MOS were a bit to little to be called edit warring. Nevertheless, you went on and wasted a lot of people's time by making the accusations formal. As for "I had always intended to provide evidence about your behavior, and then you assumed a motivation that never actually existed.", I am genuinly sorry but I really don't understand the meaning of the second part. The first part I understand perfectly. I have realized now that you will file a formal complaint against aynbody who crosses your path; some policy will always do for you. If not, you can just make incivil trash talk when at the same time labelling your own opinions as the truth; the relevant quote in the diff goes like "But certain men like you just refuse to listen because the truth of my opinions isn't as sexy as the lies they've been telling or as emotionally fulfilling as the man-bonding they've been experiencing" --HJensen, talk 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Per HJensen, all evidence presented to ArbCom involving me is presented by Tennis expert. The only reaction it generated from the community was User:Earle Martin's comment: "Sorry, but I can't agree with this: the material presented above is disagreement, not disruption." And yes, the community was working really well, in collaboration with each other (this is what has been perceived as "tag team edit warring") to improve the Serena Williams article. There seems to be a real "you're all out to get me" perception. Wrong, we're all out to improve this article as a collaborative group. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you mean "your" group, then I guess you are correct. But if you mean "all editors", then you are clearly incorrect. Your group's edit warring proves that only your group's edits are acceptable to your group. Also, I would be interested in knowing whether you agree with Alfonsornunez's restoration of the Serena Williams article just a few hours ago and, if you don't, what should be done about it. Finally, your citation of Earle Martin is disingenuous. He is not even a member of the arbitration committee. Perhaps you should read an arbitration committee member's summary of the evidence, too. You're mentioned prominently. Tennis expert (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain where the other editors who have thusfar disagreed with the edits to Serena Williams are lurking? And yes, the ArbCom member seems to note that I made just over half as many reversions as you. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Serena Williams discussion page for the editors who in the past or currently objected to the proposal to delete material from the Serena Williams article without forking it. I would still like to know what your opinion is about the Alfonsornunez restoration.... Tennis expert (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Homework done. I've re-read the whole of the talk page and I can find only three users (including Tennis expert) who had a problem with the removal of excessive intricate detail. Meanwhile, nine editors expressed an opinion that the article required attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)