Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football)

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Tyrell Johnson, Glenn Dorsey, Chris Long, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, and several other articles
Status	new
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Chrisjnelson, Yankees10, 72.0.36.36, CopaceticThought, RC-0722, Cgarz89, 67.137.0.28, Tromboneguy0186, Blackngold29, Star QB

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab new cases|Tyrell Johnson, Glenn Dorsey, Chris Long, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, and several other articles]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Tyrell Johnson, Glenn Dorsey, Chris Long, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, and several other articles]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

User:Chrisjnelson, Yankees10, 72.0.36.36, CopaceticThought, RC-0722, Cgarz89, 67.137.0.28, Tromboneguy0186, Blackngold29, Star QB

What's going on?

You can see prior discussion on it here:

There are a couple of users (User:Yankees10 and User:Chrisjnelson) who have decided in the interest of uniformity to change every NFL player's article from saying "was drafted by..." to "was originally drafted by..." Their intent was to convey that this is where the player's career began. Often when a player moves to another team their article says they "originally came from such and such team and now are at another team". To make all the articles consistent they decided to make every single article say "originally" in them, even the ones who haven't moved to another team.

Since adding "originally" to every page they've they've been reverted many times. Using the word originally implies they have been drafted more than once, when in fact they have not. Or it may imply they've moved on to another team, where in fact many of them have not. Several users feel putting "originally" into an article where it doesn't make sense is wrong and sounds goofy, others have pointed out that it's bad grammar.

There has been discussions on both of their user pages about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yankees10#Originally_drafted and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally. This argument has potential to spiral out of control (they've put so much work into changing all the articles that at this point they wouldn't admit they were wrong even if they knew they are) so it would be nice to get mediator involvement.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to get a third party mediator opinion on whether or not we should:

add "originally drafted" to every professional player's page (even the ones who haven't moved to another team) in the interest of consistency at the expense of proper grammar and fluidity
add "originally drafted" to only those players who have moved to another team at the expense of consistency
add "originally drafted" sparingly and only where it makes sense and revert those articles where they do not make sense
do not add "originally" on any of the articles

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

Discussion

They've gotten into editing wars over this, which is not uncommon for these two users. Chrisjnelson has been blocked 17 times for edit warring over the last year and Yankees10 was just blocked last week. So instead of seeing this spiral out of control I thought we should get mediator involvement. If the mediator agrees we should add "originally" to every article then the edit warring could end. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, who's the "we"? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At User talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally you had said "Hmm. I think the leads should have the word originally to keep traded and nono-traded player pages uniform" 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for this use of "originally," but I'm not losing any sleep about it. I don't plan to come here again. Was I named simply because I started the section on the Chris Long talk page? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Using the word originally implies they have been drafted more than once..."

This is completely false. It does not imply they have been drafted more than once - it implies it's when their career began.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "He was originally drafted by the Chiefs in 2007." The emphasis should not be on the team, and if it is then yes, it does sound as if he's not there anymore. The emphasis should be on "originally" as in "Player X is a current player for the Chiefs, and he was originally drafted by them in 2008."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It simply does not convey a message that you say it conveys, it implies a player played for more than one team.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue to argue that because it's untrue. It's not my job to define words for people.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about more than "origianally"

There are several issues, I have an issue with how ChrisJNelson and Yankees10 treat others. They assume their way is the only. Theyu laced my talk page with profanities, definitively decaling that their way was right and mine was worthy of slamming. I only make good-faith edits to wiki. Regardless, I agree that originally applied to a player who is still with his team is not the best way to handle that.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not about more than that. That's what this page is for.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think your behavior in this issue is worthy of being looked into. I was brought in on this, I have a right to express my opinion about have you act and how you judge others' good-faith edits, and other things.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you are talking about I dont treat users bad, how can you assume this from one instance. Also I was the one that left profanities on your talk page, which I agree was a little bit overboard, but I was frustrated about how you have a control issue over the Chris Long (American football) article, so dont blame Chris with leaving profanity--Yankees10 02:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have control issues with any article. I have made good faith edits on Long, Slater, and others. I edited them with the intent on making them better. That's all. For some reason it is yourself and ChisNelson who seem to take ownership over not only Long and Slater, but many other NFL articles. It seems anyhting that is independent is rejected and then reverted by you and ChrisJNelson. Then comes the problems. It seems to me that it is you and ChrisNelson who are having control issues and then vent your frustrations by trashing others. I happen to think you and Chris do some very good work, however, like anyonem you guys are not perfect . . . so when I think there is a chance to improve an article I do. You and Nelson not only criticized the placing of good-faith edits, you criticized the contents. I showed you the 5 pillars of wikipedia . . .you seemed to not comply with them . . . therefore, I am glad this is coming to light. I just don't think a few people should ctonrol all the NFL articles and then get your way by just wearing out people with your reverts. Most people just give up to yours and Nelson's bullying tactics. Part of what I call "bullying tactics" is using profanity to intimidate me. When you call names and say what I post is irrelevant does not make it so, and what you are doing is trying to get things dome your own way. Look both you and Nelson are very young . . . mistakes are easily worlked out but then there is a pattern and practice of profanity and expressing yourselvs in such a juvinile way, it ruins wikiepedia for good-faith editors like me. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I tried changing it and was simply told by Yankees10 "Too bad, that's how it is." I asked for a specific link to a Wikipedia style guide and received none. I'm also not losing any sleep over this, though. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say "too bad"--Yankees10 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I found it--Yankees10 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have never given that as my reason, and I certainly don't think Yankees10 should be arguing for it for only that reason. "Because that's the way it is" is not a reason at all. I do it because I think consistency is good for this part of NFL player articles and it does in fact make complete sense. I think it's written perfectly the way it is, and that's why I do it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth I thought this was something agreed to on WP:NFL, thats why I said too bad thats how it is done, I didnt even know Chris made it--Yankees10 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to bully anyone by using profanity. If you could be bullied by profanity you'd be pretty lame anyway. I use profanity to express how I'm feeling at the moment. Like if I'm fucking pissed, I'm not going to say I'm pissed. I'm going to say I'm fucking pissed. There's a difference. And dude, I can't help it if your good-faith edits are horrible. Chris Long's and Matt Slater's moms in the leads? Give me a freaking break. That is without logic, and I will continue to get rid of crap like that for the good of the articles.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. However, your position of

"I will continue to get rid of crap like that for the good of the articles"

is really the heart of the matter. Why are you the one who decides what is good or bad? What if someone thinks you are the one who ruins articles with disinformation, like the way you condense All-Pro and All-America selections. No matter how many times you condesne them cannot make it right. However, I digress, the issue is you who may have WP:OWN issues and WP:CIVIL issues and other issues with the rules here. This is not a dictatorship run by you, I don't think, and I don't think you should be able to abuse others so easily, it is bad for wiki and it is not fair to the rest of the good-gaith editors here. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using my common sense. I see a piece of an article I think sucks (and have good reason for) so I'm going to remove it. The end.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have that same right? If I think what you do is incorrect can I just "remove it"? I don't think so. What if your "common sense" is incorrect or if you happen to have a bias? What then? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not incorrect and I'm not biased. So no issue there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply posed the question, what if? What is there were a time when you WERE biased, what then? Can that never happen? Are you always right? Your answer makes my point perfectly. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always objective. I don't give a shit about Chris Long, his mother or the Rams. I have nothing against them and no allegiance too them. But I know what's notable and I know his mom isn't at all, so I'm going to remove it until the end of time because it's irrelevant crap and makes the article amateurish and worse overall.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Admin

This was posted above:

They've gotten into editing wars over this, which is not uncommon for these two users. Chrisjnelson has been blocked 17 times for edit warring over the last year and Yankees10 was just blocked last week.

If this is true, why does Nelson get to continue to behave is ways that any objective observer would call uncivil? WP:CIVIL. It can be seen here that even is discussions where Admins are looking at a specific issue that he still attacks other's. I don't quite understand (and I am willing to learn) why this guy is not banned forever. What does one have to do to be banned permanately? If being banned 17 times (if that is true, I don't know if it is) does not tell you the character of an editor what will? How long does he get to stay? 18 times? 20 times banned?. I was threatend to be blocked because of 1 incident. An Admin named Pats1 threatend with with banishment in no uncertain terms. How that is relevant is it is my view, my opinion based on belief and what I have seen is that Pats1 acts as the "muscle" for chrisjnelson. I saw it in my own case. What I would like most is a fair, civil discussion when there are disputes and that the rules of wikipedia are allpied to all, both those with an account and those who choose not to have one for personal reasons. If one can get his way through sheer force of will and wearing out others then what good are the rules? I say a nelson suspension for a long time should be looked into given his history and his current behavior, even in this thread. it just looks pretty bad.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pats1 isn't my "muscle" but if I need help and I'm right, he'll help out because he's a smart and logical guy.

And I really don't feel like I've been blocked 17 times purely for edit warring. There's no way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you "feel" is not a really good standard. If you've been banned 1 or 2 or 3 for edit warring, it says a lot. Maybe the 17 is a total number, I don't know, my point is if you've been banned numerous times, it says a lot about civility. So does your attitude and your negativity and your profanity. It is just not needed in my opinion and is not civil. Besides, I just want to know why a guy can be banned as many times as you (whatever the number is) can stay here. I asked the Admins what are the standards? Admins? I think I have asked a fair question. If there is a better forum, fine, but this seems to work, eveyone is here . . . let's just get these issues out on the table and let everyone have their say, makes sense to me.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His block log can be seen here but let's keep this on topic. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]