Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder

Statement by MAO[edit]

I think his response exemplifies exactly what's wrong with his attitude- people have tried to help him, he's just refused to listen. His definition of help is that he writes one sentence, and then a dedicated army of writers follow him around and clean-up and expand his articles. Spare Change (food) (currently on AfD), which he wrote today, is one example.--Scimitar ^parley 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my evidence. Contrary to your false claim above, Maoririder was responsive and polite from the first. His editing style improved noticeably and by the end of the first week he was producing stubs of acceptable, sometimes even very good, quality on a diverse range of subjects.

You say Maoririder's definition of help is "that he writes one sentence, and then a dedicated army of writers follow him around and clean-up and expand his articles." So? Welcome to Wikipedia, baby! --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets, etc.[edit]

Maoririder may be autistic, he may be a little kid, or he may just be a disingenuous stealth vandal. At this point, why does it matter? The creation of numerous sockpuppets and the continuation of disputed behavior certainly demonstrates that he doesn't have any desire to change, or even address that behavior.

Some would argue that this behavior isn't problematic. Fine, perhaps I'm wrong and this is normal behavior, perhaps it should even be encouraged but I doubt it. In any event, the fact that these actions are currently before the Arbitration Committee should be more than enough to suspend them for the duration of the investigation. If they find that Maoririder is acting in a perfectly normal fashion then fine, keep cranking out worthless nanostubs. Until then, don't you think a rational person who only wants to make Wikipedia better would take a timeout? I know I would.

As I mentioned above, at this point I don't think what/who we're dealing with is any longer relevant. The continuation of the behavior, the attacks on and general deprecation of people who originally tried to help him (most notably Lucky), and even his responses -- if they can even be termed as such -- to the charges are completely inexcusable.

Something else I find completely inexcusable is Tony's sudden interest in the situation and the fashion in which he's been conducting himself. The comments above demonstrate that he has little to no knowledge of the situation. I'm begging you, look at the same record everybody else is looking at! Maoririder was not at all responsive at any point. If you mean did he respond to comments on his talk page the answer is sometimes. If you mean did he alter his behavior in the slightest because of them the answer is a categorical no.

What I see isn't someone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way that conforms with community consensus. What I see is someone of questionable motives and mental status who wants to add nonsensical garbage to Wikipedia to make himself feel better.

If it sounds like I'm being harsh it's because I am. I tried to be patient and helpful from the start, as did many others, but my patience wore thin a long time ago. I urge the Committee to consider the evidence at their earliest convenience as new points seem to be added almost hourly. Soltak | Talk 21:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you suggest that Maoririder may be "a disingenuous stealth vandal". Well if he were, wouldn't we be able to find copious examples of this? Many hoax articles, for instance, or insertions of bogus factoids into articles. I think the nearest I've seen to that is Spare Change (food), which contained an unverifiable vignette about a supposed kind of Mexican burrito. Nearly without exception, Maoririder's other edits have been on encyclopedic subjects and correctly (if often extremely tersely) identified their subject, enabling easy expansion.

Secondly you repeat the false description of his output as "worthless nanostubs". These articles are certainly stubs, but they're not worthless. Skillin Elementary School, for instance, contains a single sentence fragment but correctly identifies and locates the school in question. A person reading this doesn't learn much, but he does learn enough to expand the article--which is how stubs work.

Thirdly you falsely state that Maoririder " doesn't have any desire to change, or even address that behavior." My evidence in this case demonstrates that Maoririder made great improvements in his first week, at the end of which he was subject to two blocks of dubious legitimacy. The quality of his contributions has deteriorated since then, sadly. But on this we should consider the mixed signals we've been sending him. No sooner did he learn to put the name of the articles in block caps and include a little more information in articles than "it is a type of dog", than he was blocked twice for "disruption". No sooner did he learn to put an expansion template into the talk page than someone scolded him for "overuse" of that useful template.

One frustrating aspect of this case is how repeatedly the same falsehoods are trundled out to describe Maoririder's behavior. "Disruptive", "worthless", "vandal". Yet he keeps producing stubs on useful subjects where before there was nothing, and the content of the stubs while minimal is almost invariably useful. Why is this a problem for Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if there's any way to see how many articles he created were deleted? It seems to me that by looking at his edit history, we are only seeing non-deleted articles, which is going to give a sample that is skewed towards those articles that were encyclopedic. -Satori ^(talk) 15:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see the "tagged-and-bagged" articles, but you can see the ones that were deleted before anyone edited them to add a del or db tag, or to copy edit. In the deletion log you'll see articles like this with a deletion summary containing the words "and the only contributor was 'X'" where X is the name of the creator of the article being deleted. You'll find a few of these listed in Tranches one and two of my evidence.

In theory it's possible to find the names of all the deleted articles created by an editor by a simple sql query of the database, but this cannot be performed on the live system for performance reasons, and for legal reasons the English Wikipedia does not make the archive table (where deleted revisions are kept) available to outsiders--it's full of defamatory statements and copyright infringements. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this really has be my favorite part of arguing with Tony. It's pretty easy to refute something when you take tiny parts out of context isn't it? I find it's one of the easiest ways to win an argument.

First, I mentioned "stealth vandal" in a short list along with "At this point, why does it matter?" Reading the things around a statement, and having a general understanding of the spirit in which it was written (I learned a long time ago in college that this is called context) can be really helpful.

Secondly, my statement that he churns out "worthless nanostubs," while again not taken in context with the rest of the argument, is nonetheless completely correct. As Satori pointed out, the most useless have been deleted through the AFD process and are therefore not available in his list of contributions. The not-so-useless are still available because people have spent time expanding them.

Out of all of your comments I still don't have an understanding of why you inserted yourself into a situation that you have no real knowledge of and were never in any way involved in. And you really need to realize that just because you disagree with the consensus that doesn't make the consensus wrong. Soltak | Talk 21:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim that someone may be a "disingenuous stealth vandal", then I expect to see you able to present evidence of stealth vandalism. Since there really isn't much in the way of such evidence, it's appropriate for me to mention that fact. The surrounding commentary doesn't mitigate the fact that you made this claim without a shred of evidence.

On the maoririder articles that have been nominated for deletion, let's have a look at what happened. Here are the first dozen identifiable Maoririder deletion debates I could find on AfD, searching forward from the date of his earliest edit:

Sport Digital Watch deleted
Butler School Rewritten as disambig and kept
List of streets in Manchester, New_Hampshire deleted
List of streets in Portland, Maine deleted
Cloverhill Bakery expanded and kept
Baxter Boulevard expanded and kept
King Middle School, Portland, Maine expanded and kept
Tukey's Bridge deleted
Million Dollar Bridge (Maine) expanded beautifully and kept
Deering Oaks expanded and kept
Portland High School, Portland, Maine expanded and kept with an overwhelming keep vote
Endurance Hawaii kept

So out of twelve listings, only four were deleted. At least one of the other eight, Portland School was kept with an overwhelming keep vote. So what's the problem here? Even most of the articles that get listed for deletion don't get deleted. Overall AfD has a deletion rate of around 70-75%. Maoririder's score is much, much better, only 33% of these twelve articles listed for deletion were deleted. So again the use of the term "worthless nanostubs" is shown to be unjustified.

Finally I think you should be careful of phrases like "my favorite part of arguing with Tony". They look like attempts to make a sneaky personal attack. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that "only 1/3rd of what I write gets trashed!" was a plausible defense. I'm gonna have to remember that one. As for sneaky personal attacks, that wasn't one- stop misrepresenting your ideological opponents.--Scimitar ^parley 18:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progression?[edit]

This is today (courtesy of Sockpuppet #1,300,456):[1] This is from August 9: [2] Is this progression? Co-operation? Learning? No, it isn't. There has been no noticeable change in quality or commitment from Maoririder, regardless of what Tony says.--Scimitar ^parley 21:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence shows otherwise. His style has deteriorated since the marked improvements of his first week, but that doesn't mean he didn't improve greatly in that week. From this to this. At about which point he was blocked twice, his style deteriorated again, and an RfC was created describing his contributions as "extremely disruptive".

What I'd like you to do is to stop making these easily refuted false statements about Maorider's behavior and try to work out why this happened. Why did some of those who purported to be helping him go on the attack at precisely the time he was showing so much progress? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never went on the attack and I still don't consider myself to be "on the attack". Maoririder's behaviour needs to change, and talking to him didn't work. The RfC didn't work, because he ignored it. I'm hoping this will work. As for extremely disruptive, any conflict that can tie up 4+ admins is, in my opinion, disruptive.--Scimitar ^parley 14:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you claim that Maoririder's behavior needs to change? Isn't he just editing the wiki the way you and I do? You claim that the "conflict", as you describe it, "tied up 4+ admins". What on earth were admins required for in the first place? Why did these admins harass him when all he was doing was editing pages, some of which went on to be very impressive articles indeed? By the way, have you seen his midget wrestler lately? It's amazing what wonderful oak trees can quickly grow from Maoririder's small acorns. As one voter on AfD recently said of the article: "keep and roll eyes". --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you just asked the midget wrestler for effect; evidently you missed my vote change three days ago to keep. As for tying up admins, some admins do new page patrol, and Maori's flood of barely single-sentence contributions take time and effort to fix. As for contributing like you or I, I properly format my articles and contribute enough that the articles don't have to go to AfD for expansion. As for my reasons he needs to change, I think I've already laid them out half a dozen times and feel no need to repeat myself.--Scimitar ^parley 17:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you like midget wrestler, then what's the problem?

You say that Maoririder's articles "take time and effort to fix". Well this is what we're here to do--it takes time and effort to improve any article. I'm still utterly mystified as to why you're so hateful towards this fellow. He was producing perfectly good stubs when you agreed to an administrator blocking him, for what possible reason I cannot imagine. That's quite bizarre. Can you not see how I'd find it difficult to understand your attitude towards this perfectly harmless user who produces so many articles that get expanded into exciting stuff like midget wrestler. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not remotely hateful to him; I dislike the way he floods new pages with his half-finished thoughts. It makes patrolling it impossible. If he took the time to put a little more effort (formatting, more than one sentence) into his stubs, there never would have been a problem. He steadfastly refused to. All I want is for him to contribute stuff that doesn't need fixing. Expansion? Sure, great fine. But when thirteen of the twenty most recent articles are from him, and all need fixing, it makes it very difficult to stop vandals and address other problems. I want him to grow to a point where he doesn't need a babysitter.--Scimitar ^parley 19:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the trouble, you make false statements as if they were true. For example:

If he took the time to put a little more effort (formatting, more than one sentence) into his stubs, there never would have been a problem. He steadfastly refused to.

Then how do you explain this?

15:20, 3 August 2005 Prides Corner School:

Prides Corner School grades are K-2. It is a public school. It has 361 people. It is located on 375 Pride Street Westbrook, Maine 04092. It is located in Cumberland County. It's phone number is (207) 797-5222. It is a part of the Westbrook School Department.

External Links

http://www.greatschools.net/modperl/browse_school/me/535 Prides Corner School

And I can point you to many other stubs he was creating at about the same time, that demonstrated that he was well up to normal Wikipedia standard within a week or so of making his first edit. So don't give me that bullshit, let's talk about the facts, not what you would wish to pretend are the facts. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While not an admin, I am an editor that often patrols New Pages. And yes, the nature of New Pages patrol is that one spends a lot of time cleaning up stubs. My frustration with Maori, however, was that the same mistakes were being made over and over again. Furthermore, when people attempted to explain to him how he could make better articles himself, he would often reply affirmatively, but not follow through.

Now, perhaps there's no specific WP policy that was broken. But, I think several editors felt that the spirit of a consensus-based community was violated by the "yes, ok, I'll try" answers and the continuing creation of misformatted and sub-stubby articles. I don't think anybody was trying to be "hateful". I do think that a group of editors realized that they weren't getting through to him, and weren't sure how to deal with that. Hence the RfC, which I didn't feel was meant as an attack.

And again, yes NP patrol involves a lot of cleaning up of bad style by new contributors. However, I think there is an expectation that someone who is committing to being a regular contributor of new pages to the project understand concepts such as ideal stub articles and what Wikipedia is not, especially after they've been pointed out a couple of times. -Satori ^(talk) 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, that's great. Did he do it consistently? No. You can point to the surviving stubs all you want; they don't tell the whole picture. You don't see the deleted nano-stubs. You chose to ignore the fact that every time he got a little slap on the wrist he reverted back to "is a school" type stubs. You're looking at things now, and trying to piece together what initially happened. I was there, you weren't. It's also helpful if you remember that I was only here less than three months when the initial block was performed. Lucky was not yet an admin. Hence, I believe someone called Ike in. Ike saw what was going on, saw Maori promising to change and not doing it, and blocked him. It was eminently justifiable, especially since none of us knew what we were dealing with. Now we think we do, but we really aren't sure. He ignored the RfC. Now he needs a babysitter. That's what I want. I'd suggest you, since you're already effectively functioning as one, but this recent streak of belligerence, and the fact you refuse to see where everyone else is coming from has me worried.--Scimitar ^parley 23:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

niggz[edit]

tony defend he say niggaz to a black man racist [[Android and bah he said he called my niggaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maoririder (talk • contribs)

Clarification of the above comment: Maoririder used a racial slur to vandalize Android's user page. No user has used this word directed at Maoririder. His latest spate of edits mostly consists of accusing everyone else of using it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jingofetts[edit]

looks like maoririder is back under a different name. hes stopped using his old account and is now here as User:Jingofetts. is that allowed? BL kiss the lizard 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]