Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jax 0677

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CLOSED
Thanks to everyone who participated. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response from TenPoundHammer

[edit]
  • And you've constantly ignored the asterisk saying that "related articles" don't count towards the five standard of WP:NENAN, as seen in this discussion from March 28. I will grant that you've stopped making half-assed navboxen for artists with lots of articles, but you're still making ones for artists with very little to link. You've also made WP:SYNTH templates like Template:Seals family and argued that unrelated articles like Dan Seals discography and Lisa Stewart should be linked. Also, many of your arguments are immaterial — the Kevin Fowler template was kept because someone else created articles on the other albums. Colt Ford was kept because his fourth album inched closer to release date, and eventually gained enough info to warrant an article (which was not the case when you made the template). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am replying on the talk page, where this reply and the comment before this belong. The "asterisk" is a view from another user, not official Wikipedia policy. As long as the navbox has multiple articles that do not link to one another, the navbox should have merit. I have refrained from making synth templates as of late, and I make sure that the navbox title has its own article. Template:Kevin Fowler was kept because it had enough albums.

Template:Colt Ford was kept because it had five articles to begin with, Colt, the first three albums and the record company that he owns. At the time of nomination, WP:NENAN required five links, and did not state that the parent article of the navbox did not count toward the five links required. I find it very hard to believe that the track listing for Declaration of Independence (album) was not created until after July 5, as I found the track listing on July 7 (though I could be mistaken). TenPoundHammer redirected "Declaration of Independence (album)" while I was in the process of creating the article, and the track listing, release date and title were widely published. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respons from The Banner

[edit]

I have indeed made no formal attempts to solve the problems with Jax 0677, but I have requested many times that he should up the quality of his work.

As a hunter of links to disambiguation pages, I encountered his templates with a shocking frequency. He had weeks that I was solving three templates a day. But the most shocking encounter with the strange behaviour was this: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 14. 179 fake templates (in fact redirects to main space) just to claim the template name. Some of those links were there already for months. Only when caught red handed, he would start fixing in. In the process 17 out of 179 templates (almost 10 percent) was deleted. At that time I did not check what the true quality of his work was.

I have by now nominated I guess a few hundred navigation templates of mr. Jax, most of them for failing WP:NENAN. Although mr. Jax regularly claims that WP:NENAN is just an essay, he has the habit of coming up with more links after nomination. Often creating links to earlier unlinked articles, more often by the emergency creation of stubs to comply with the threshold of 5 links. Back links and links to "related items" are in general not counted for the threshold of 5, something mr. Jax often challenges when there are not enough links.

The fact that many of his templates are kept, has nothing to do with the quality of his work, but everything with the creation of links after the nomination. Only very recently I started to look at what the value was of those added links and emergency-created articles. The signs are bad...

Unfortunately, RfC/U is not the place for topic bans, because I would have given my support to that. By now, I support the desired outcome as stated by the filer of this case.

To avoid misunderstandings: Night of the Big Wind is my former user name. The Banner talk 19:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Note for the volunteers: when you believe that this belongs on the project page, you have my permission to move it to the right spot. [reply]

Reply - Recently, I have avoided disambiguation pages in my navboxes almost entirely, with very few exceptions. The Banner recently busted me for making one mistake at Template:Timbiriche due to Timbiriche having incorrect article links. I stopped "reserving template names" for a while before "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 14" was filed. I apologized for this error, but the fact of the matter was that creating dozens of navboxes was a large undertaking which took almost two weeks. NENAN was not modified to exclude the parent article of the navbox until after I created several templates, so some templates may only have 5 links. I feel that there is nothing wrong with trying to prevent a navbox from being deleted if it has potential, even if that means adding links or scope. The fact that many of the navboxes are kept is likely evidence of the fact that WP:TOOSHORT was not followed, and no attempt to improve the navboxes was made. Whether "related items" count depends on the article. My navboxes, more often than not, have had 5 or more links (if not 6). Other people have in fact, volunteered to create stubs following this TfD nomination. In fact, The Banner asked me why I did not create red links to potential articles, and I responded that doing so violates WP:WTAF. I can not predict which articles will be deleted in the future, I can only improve connectivity. The Banner has ignored many of the questions that I have asked in XfD discussions such as that for Kochmit without even telling me that it's none of my business. I have improved the quality of my work dramatically since I started creating navboxes in early 2012. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have indeed improved the quality of your work dramatically. You went from "disastrous quality" to "insufficient quality". And it is rather difficult to discuss things with you, as you are a bit hopping around. For example: denying the validity of WP:NENAN but on the other hand creating stubs to adhere to the minimum of five useful links conform WP:NENAN. And the rather WP:Pointy use of the argument "article ABC is not linked to article XYZ, so I created the navigation box" (instead of using normal wikilinking) and the even more annoying argument "the navigation box saves the reader two clicks" (that is not the intention of nav boxes). The Banner talk 11:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Again, as of late, I have made sure that all of the articles in the navbox include said template. Regarding denying the vaildity of NENAN, if a navbox has five total links instead of six total links, and the articles do not all link to one another, then a navbox may still not be inappropriate. I have not created music album articles in the past 48-72 hours, and if a navbox I created is nominated for deletion, I think I am well within my right to create legitimate articles to have the navbox kept in tact, if the actual concern is that there are indeed too few links in the navbox. Actually, the point of a navbox is to save the reader one click, per this TfD. If normal wikilinking can be done, The Banner has failed on numerous occasions to demonstrate how this is possible. The Banner has also failed to answer many of the questions that I have posed in XfDs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Jax:
  1. a navbox is not justified solely by its inclusion of articles do not directly link to each other.
  2. The fact that only 72 hours have elapsed since the last if your non-notable-stub-creation sprees is nothing to boast about
  3. There is no problem creating "legitimate articles". The problem is that you have been creating illegitimate articles
  4. Cretaing articles to justify keeping a navbox is a back-to-front approach. Navbox exist to link content, but you are creating content merely to justify a navigational device. That's like building a house just because someone put up a name sign at a gate.
  5. A comment in one TFD is not a W< guideline. Please stop citing it as if it was.
  6. Normal wikilinking is easy. "FooedBar2 was the second album by Foo and the Bars, following on from their 1863 debut album FooedBar1. Blah blah about the album ... the band's next album FooedBar3 was released only 6 months later."
Try reading the existing guidelines, rather than complaining that other editors aren't answering questions which you could have answered for yourself long ago if you weren't so busy creating and defending pointless pages. And I mean read them, as in study them and try to understand their meaning, rather than simply scan them for a snippet which you can quite out of context to provide some flaky justification for your disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I am within my right to respectfully disagree with other members of the community, as they have the same right. At this time, I will respond to the points posed:
  1. My navboxes have almost always (if not always) had a central theme to them, such as a musician, a musical ensemble, a school, or an organization. The articles within those navboxes have almost always (if not always) related to one another and the parent article.
  2. I have made mistakes in the past. The fact is that we are where we are, and that I have not created any music album stubs in those past 72 hours at all.
  3. I disagree that I have created illegitimate articles. I have allowed several of Shadow Project's albums and the Wuthering Heights band article to go forth with redirection or deletion without obstruction, respectively.
  4. I have had at least 5 links in all of the navboxes that I create, usually more. Some of these navboxes, such as Template:Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show and Template:Massacre (experimental band) went to TfD anyway.
  5. I know that "A comment in one TFD is not a [Wikipedia] guideline". It simply supports my opinion.
  6. While normal wikilinking may be easy, a navbox is much more conspicuous than wikilinking, and the NENAN rule of five does not account for wikilinking when the number of articles in a navbox goes above 5. In a long article, it may be difficult to find the links in the prose compared to in a navbox.
  7. The accuser has the burden of proof in an XfD, and it is difficult for any user to be knowledgeable about all of the WP policies. While I have made mistakes, I have made great strides in correcting them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But in the mean time you just go on with producing unfinished templates, like Template:Zwan and Template:13th Floor Elevators. The Banner talk 01:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Banner, exactly how are these two templates "unfinished"? I have included every article related to Zwan and TFE that I can think of, and I have included the navbox in all of the articles within the navbox. Seriously, can you please be more specific? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you did not know what the problem was at Template:Zwan, but was able to correct it before playing the innocent editor here. And a bit of proper linking would be nice on Template:13th Floor Elevators. I really get the idea that you refuse to take this process seriously. The Banner talk 12:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I am taking this process very seriously. My only error on "Template:Zwan" was putting "Related" where "Songs" should be, an honest oversight mistake indeed. As far as I can tell, "Template:13th Floor Elevators" is "properly [linked]". If "Template:13th Floor Elevators" is not "properly [linked]", please show me exactly where it is not properly linked. The accuser has the burden of proof in cases like this one. No matter how much I try to improve on things, I get criticized no matter what it seems, yet The Banner continues to make mistakes in his accusations. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have forgotten how to pipe links. In {{Zola Jesus}}, which you created back in October, you did it just fine, but you don't do it at all in your recent template creations. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - If the issue is that the links are not piped, then this falls under the category of formatting, not linking, as all of the articles that I can reasonably contemplate are indeed linked to the navbox. That being said, I will return to those two navboxes and pipe the articles. This issue took three iterations to answer, similar to the issue of whether the NENAN "rule of five" includes the parent article taking multiple iterations to answer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BHG

[edit]

I had been planning to open an RFC/U on Jax's conduct, but I see that someone else dis so first.

I have certified the basis of the dispute, but while I support everything that's there, I think that it grossly understates the width and depth of the disruption.

For example, I note:

  1. Jax's WP:POINTy spree of creating stubs on non-notable topics simply to bulk out the navboxes.
    • His contesting of all PRODs for such articles, without making any effort to claim that they were notable
    • His repeated misrepresentations of guidelines in the subsequent XfD discussions
  2. Jax's apparent complete ignorance of the basics of WP:Notability
  3. Jax's cluttering up of XFD discussions with pointless "thankyou" spam
  4. Jax's persistent failure to thread discussions properly, contrary to WP:TPG#Layout

The Banner says above that Jax went from "disastrous quality" to "insufficient quality". I think that's wildly over-generous: the quality of Jax's current work is abysmal, and it is massively tendentious and WP:POINTy.

I will be adding a few statements to this RFC/U, setting out Jax's rampage of disruptive editing in more detail, and proposing some desired outcomes. However an RFC/U is a process which can take up to a month, and in the meantime Jax's disruption continues; his replies so far give little indication that he has learnt anything. This may lead to admin action before the RFC/U is completed, such as topics bans or other editing restrictions.

To avoid this, I very strongly urge Jax to treat the RFC/U process as a learning opportunity. He has started by simply defending his conduct and dismissing other editors' warnings as simply opposing opinions. That approach is unlikely to end well for Jax. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply
  1. To the best of my recollection, I have not created any album or stub articles in the past 48-72 hours. While I may have done so previously, the fact is that we are where we are. My prime direction lately has been to merge the albums with the artist/ensemble. This is evidence of correction of my previous conduct.
  2. My "complete ignorance of the basics of WP:Notability" is unfounded, and is a matter of opinion.
  3. I have NOT responded with "Thank you" by itself in the past 48-72 hours, and those responses do not fall within the definition of SPAM.
  4. My "persistent failure to thread discussions properly" is unfounded, and is a matter of opinion.
I have greatly improved my editing of Wikipedia over the past year, and I feel that my latest templates show this. Some of the pages that BHG has sent to XfD have either been kept, or have been expanded greatly (Template:War from a Harlots Mouth in addition to album articles about Rozz Williams and Eva O). --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Same old chestnuts, along with a lame "I-haven't-done-that-particular-type-of-disruption-since-the_RFCU-opened" defence. It's a disgrace that it has taken the opening of an RFCU to get you to desist even temporarily, and I note the complete absence of any regret, apology or withdrawal of your previous antics.
I didn't expect better, but I did hope for better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I have apologized for placing a navbox in a TfD, for redirecting Template space names to article space, and I apologize for creating album stub articles with insufficient references (the thing is, that some of the albums that went to AfD have been significantly expanded, and the majority of my creations that have gone to XfD have indeed been kept). I have tried to make sure that all of the articles in my navboxes relate to the navbox topic, and within reason to one another. I have not created music album stub articles in the past 72 hours, and I allowed Shadow Projects albums to be redirected without contest. I have also permitted the PROD on Wuthering Heights to go forth without obstruction. While I have debated the deletion of Template:Yamazaki Maso, I have done so politely and professionally. I am within my right to respectifully disagree with other members of the Wikipedia community. If the community states that they want the artist to have at least four solo albums, I will gladly oblige from here on out, though I strongly believe that people who are interested in Yamazaki Maso may also be interested in FT and their albums.
While I have made mistakes in the past, the fact is that we are where we are, and that time cannot move forward faster than it does. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever thought of taking a break to study and learn? The Banner talk 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Please see bullet point 7 above. As soon as I learn one thing, I will get busted for not knowing something else. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not true. Point is that you do so many things wrong, that we can only take them on one-by-one. The Banner talk 01:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I have owned up to these mistakes, and have largely refrained from making them in the past 96 hours. The Banner has made accusations about me that he has not yet backed up, like this, and has failed to answer legitimate questions posed to him in XfDs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no credit given for improving the quality of my work since March 30th

[edit]

I am writing this section to address the issue that I have been given almost no credit for improving the quality of my work in the past 96 hours. I have created zero music album stubs during this time, and have done my best to make sure that the navboxes that I create in the future contain all of the articles related to the title that I am reasonably able to contemplate. While I have made mistakes in the past, and have made tiny mistakes as of late, the fact remains that we are where we are and that I have improved the quality of my work dramatically. My minor mistakes as of late have involved copying over a group for Template:Zwan as "Related" instead of changing it to "Songs", and forgetting to pipe links whose article names contain brackets. I feel that I am well within my right to respectfully disagree with others on issues as people are entitled to disagree with me. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you have screwed up so many things and for so long, that you are left without any credit from my side. And sorry, even when I throw in AGF, I won't give you credit on what you have done in 5 days. I want to see the results stick, not for 5 days, not for 5 weeks, but at least for 5 months. You have to earn your credit by showing good work in a considerable number over a considerable amount of time. We have given you already a considerably amount of credit by bringing your case here and not at WP:AN and asking for a topic ban on template-creation. The Banner talk 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I appreciate the matter being brought to RFC. The reality is that I can not make time fast forward, therefore, we are where we are. My last couple of templates have been of superb quality. If I remember correctly, someone told me that "No one is complaining if you have to stop work for the night". For this reason, I will finish placing Template:54-40 on the other articles shortly before I start the next template. How exactly did the figure of "5 months" come about? If you have ignored many of my legitimate questions, how does this bode for you? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did not notice the series: 5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months? You try to claim kudos for working good for 5 days and I plain refuse to give them. You have to give me more time and more quality products to earn my trust again.
If I remember correctly, someone told me that "No one is complaining if you have to stop work for the night". That is true, but that does not count when you are working in main space. Half finished articles or templates just don't belong in main space. They belong in your user space. Using the template "InUse" gives you some leeway, but only for about a day. The Banner talk 20:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I asked for credit, not kudos. IMO, choosing a different unit of measurement for the same numeral is not a good way to determine a period of time for good writing. In the past five days, I have followed the desired outcome to the best of my ability (yet my questions still get ignored). The act of placing a large template on dozens of articles is not an instantaneous process. This is what I meant when I said that "No one is complaining if you have to stop work for the night". Placing Template:54-40 on almost two dozen articles took more than one sitting, but I got it done. Placing templates on hundreds of articles may also take more than one sitting. My music templates are similar to other music templates. I don't know what else I can do now besides what I am doing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing what you have produced after 4/4/2013, you deserve no credit at all. The Banner talk 01:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gongshow

[edit]

I have not really reviewed Jax 0677's post-March 30th edits, but based on the frequency with which his template/article creations have popped up at TfD/AfD in the preceding months, I feel that starting this RfC/U was a good idea. One point I wish to (re)emphasize from the oft-cited (by Jax) Kevin Fowler TfD: I suggested at the time that five "quality" album+song articles should be established before making an artist's navbox. Doing so, I contended, "would result in less drama [at TfD] while decreasing workloads for other editors." I still think that approach would be beneficial going forward. Instead, it sometimes seems as though navboxes are being created first, and then figuring out how to make them stick comes later, inevitably, during TfDs. At the Shadow Project TfD, for example, the claim that "Stub articles for the albums can easily be created" led to these articles [1][2][3], all of which were non-notable and redirected. Similar actions were taken with other acts' albums which were also redirected or deleted altogether. Greater care must be taken with creating album/artist articles and navboxes to prevent the type of mass redirects/AfDs/TfDs that have taken place recently.  Gong show 00:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Gongshow, thank you very much for your comment. I could not agree with you more, this is why I have not created any album stubs in the past 96 hours. When I first created navboxes, I was not aware that related articles and the parent article did not count toward the NENAN rule of five. It is for this reason that I have allowed more XfDs and redirects to go forward unobstructed in recent hours. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

[edit]

I propose that this RFC be closed due to Jax 0677's recent edit history and comments that lead me to believe he is complying with the requests set forth in the desired outcomes.

  • Few of his templates and articles are being nominated for deletion because
    1. Jax is making complete navboxes at time of creation (see for example {{Lynn Anderson}} - not the best organized but at least it appears a good faith attempt was made to include all appropriate and related content).
    2. Jax has avoided creating stub articles for albums with questionable notability and thus has avoided creating navboxes for such artists which otherwise would not meet the suggestions as laid out in WP:NENAN.
    3. New templates created by Jax have been transcluded into all articles listed within the navboxes.
  • Jax's overall cooperation in this matter and improvements to his work are acknowledged. I encourage Jax to take a step back anytime another editor brings up an issue regarding his edits going forward to discuss the matter rationally and to stop completely if multiple editors have the same issue until it is resolved.

Whether this is enough for all, I don't know, but I do feel we can move on and put this behind us. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Reply - Thank you very much for your motion to close. I appreciate the recognition of the great strides that I have made to improve the quality of my navboxes. While some of the navboxes that I have made in 2012 (such as "Template:Yahzarah") may walk out of my past into XfD, I am hoping that few of the navboxes that I create in the future will do so. Though my navboxes may never be perfect, I will do my best to make them decent, and follow WP:BRD. Keep in mind that Op47 once stated that "No one is complaining (as far as I know) if [I] have to stop work for the night", which mostly applies to placement of navboxes on multiple pages. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, guys, but Jax is in fact back at square one. He is again producing dodgy templates failing WP:NENAN. And he is still very obstructive and annoying in the discussion. This whole discussion has had only a very limited and very temporary effect. See for instance the nominations here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 16. The Banner talk 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed. He's basically ignoring what's been said here and the desired outcome, which agreed upon by 12 other editors. I will look into the next steps of requesting a ban from creating templates or other type of restrictions, if he's not willing to do so voluntarily. The goal of this RfC was to reduce the number of his templates being taken to TfD. If that's not happening, he should stop. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he's definitely not improving. Take a look here for yet more filibustering from him and dogged determination to keep his templates, come hell or high water. Definitely not changing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: topic ban for Jax 0677 regarding templates

[edit]

As follow up to this now closed RFC/U: the proposal is filed here The Banner talk 15:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jax_0677&oldid=1137448637"