Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Brian G. Crawford - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quillercouch (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 23 May 2006 (→Outside view: Added my view). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:36, 23 May 2006 by Quillercouch (talk | contribs) (→Outside view: Added my view)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

User:Brian G. Crawford has nominated the Cleveland steamer article in bad faith three times, uses incorrect templates to identify content disputes, psuedo-deletes nearly the entire article while during the AfD nomination, is unresponsive to attempts at discussion, removed {{sexstub}} without justification, and mounts personal attacks against other users. User does not appear to be interested in working toward consensus or improving the article by discussing its specific problems.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

  1. Bad faith nominations: 1st nomination, 2nd nomination, 3rd nomination
  2. Incorrect templates in content disputes: Original research template discussion,
  3. Psuedo-deletion of article during AfD nom:
  4. Unresponsive at discussion attempts/Incivility: Brian G. Crawford talk page
  5. Removal of stub status: Cleveland steamer talk page
  6. Personal attacks: WP:AfD/Cleveland steamer(3rd nom) (see attacks against User:badlydrawnjeff.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:POINT
  3. WP:AGF
  4. WP:CIVIL
  5. WP:EQ
  6. WP:CON

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Cleveland steamer
  2. Talk:Coprophilia#Cleveland_steamer_merge_proposal

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. -- backburner001 16:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Apyule 14:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. This, unfortunately, is only one in a long list of situations that BGC has been involved with. The ability to assume good faith with this user disappeared some time ago. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with this summary. This user seems to flagrantly disregard the deletion policy and is often unresponsive or uncivil in AfD discussions. --Cheapestcostavoider 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Response by Stifle

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Brian is trying to get rid of an article that is unverifiable. The term has very questionable notability, is a neologism, and its only source is a usenet post, hardly a reliable source. He's gone about it slightly the wrong way, and made one or two hard-to-justify comments, but in the end he seems to be furthering the goals of the encyclopedia very well. He ought to be commended, not condemned.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. The ends don't justify the means (which is why I've endorsed the other summary). But yes, his goal in this case is worthy. Mangojuice 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Proto||type 13:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by AnonEMouse

Brian G. Crawford likes deleting articles. It's what he does. See his user page a few days ago, before he blanked it. Recently he changed a redirect to an article just so he could nominate it for deletion. (I understand only administrators can see the edit history of a deleted article.) Well, all right, it takes all kinds to make a Misplaced Pages. We all like different things about editing here; I, for example, saved an article once and am darn proud of the barnstar I got for it.

But he really should be nicer about it. The Cleveland AFD nom was opened with the comment: "User:badlydrawnjeff, a known hardline inclusionist, has done his best at bringing this article in line with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, and has failed, although his insulting edit summaries are noted."

Here are the complete edit summaries of Jeff's edits to the article before the nomination: (rvv),(fixing disambigs),(more expansion.),(moving sex stub),(rv merge. Merge request was only up a couple days, and there is no current consensus to do so.) I can't find anything insulting there, so have to agree that seems like an unwarranted personal attack against Jeff.

It also seems like a bit of a bad faith nomination, since it is the third time he's doing it, after having failed twice before. Just a bit of a bad faith nom, since he is getting a number of supports for his view that this is not the sort of article the WP wants ... but they're almost matched by the number of people writing straight out that this is a bad faith nom. Sometimes you have to realize some fights you can't win; time to go do something else (which in BGC's case would be to go nominate a few dozen different articles for deletion, I guess).

All this isn't nice, but isn't a hanging offence. Slap him on the wrist, tell him to be nicer, and send him on his way.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mangojuice 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Brian seems to have gone off the deep end a bit recently, although I note that he claims that some of his recent edits (e.g. presumably the likes of ) were the work of an imposter . Nevertheless, his general attitude has been quite agressive for some time, culminating in the Cleveland steamer debacle outlined above. I agree with AEM above- all slightly silly, but certainly not a hanging offence. Badgerpatrol 16:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. M 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Poetlister

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Is it proven that Brian G. Crawford made all these edits? If you check my talk page, you will see that he recently gave me a barnstar. In fact, someone purporting to be him gave me one, and when I thanked him, he said that his account had been hacked. He deleted the barnstar but gave me another one. The style of writing was completely different from the first one, and I see no reason to doubt that two people were involved.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Poetlister 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.