Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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, not different disputes. 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: 02:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC).



Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

SamuraiClinton, who alternately signs his VfD/talk edits as GoofyGuy or TheSamurai, creates and edits articles in a very idiosyncratic and sometimes disruptive manner. More often than not, his edits are reverted and his new articles are nominated for deletion or redirected. He has also created many ill-fated categories and templates and has attempted to circumvent the VfD process in multiple ways. Many editors have become frustrated with the cleanup that his edits necessitate, and while we would like to assume good faith, SamuraiClinton has not attempted to improve his contributions, despite politely-given advice from many different users. In fact, SamuraiClinton often ignores comments left on his user page, or selectively responds only to minor points made in those comments.

I changed from GoofyGuy to TheSamurai a while ago. --TheSamurai 00:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(The above is a perfect example of selective response to a minor point.)

Description[edit]

{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.}

Patterns of behavior:

  1. Adding articles on neologisms, presumably made up on the spot
  2. Creating a new article on some obscure aspect of a main subject, and adding a See also link to that article from the main subject's page
  3. Creating templates with limited usability; recreating the same type of template with a new name after the first goes up for deletion
  4. Creating limited-use or just plain silly categories; seemingly comes up with a category and writes articles to fill the category
  5. Poorly-chosen article titles
  6. Poorly-chosen/obscure article subjects (minor video game characters, small sections of interstates and highways)
  7. Inaccurate or poorly fact-checked contributions
  8. Speculation about future events, especially video games and video game systems
  9. Tasteless jokes/vandalism (relatively minor and rare)
  10. Pointless/idiosyncratic addition of "X in pop culture" sections to articles on X
  11. Circumvention of VfD in two different ways:
    1. Attempting to split an article by creating new policy
    2. Attempting to merge/redirect an article by declaring consensus before the VfD process was finished
  12. Inappropriate and blatant sockpuppetry

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

  1. Neologisms: Representative sample, there are probably more: Hypotenuse highway, Marriage obsolescence, Romantic forgery
  2. Gratuitous "see also" links: Representative sample: The aforementioned Romantic forgery was added to the Forgery article; Parkway jokes (presumably speedily deleted) was added to Parkway
  3. Templates: Template:Nn (also see [1]) and Template:Toolong are currently on TfD. Template:Noimgyet and Template:Picneed, which was subsequently redirected (or moved?) to Template:Reqimg, were on TfD concurrently.
  4. Categories: Category:Analogy articles, 1 hit wonders
  5. Poorly-chosen article titles: Representative sample: Clunky cartridge button, 4 score and 7 years ago
  6. Obscure topics: Representative sample: Dinelle's foodmart, Boom Boom, Sensimilla street
  7. Poorly fact-checked contributions: Venus (disambiguation), Forced entry (confusing a "booty call" with forced entry and rape is especially disturbing)
  8. Speculation: PlayStation Portable, Xbox
  9. Tastless jokes/vandalism: Santa Claus (see "Goofy jokes about Santa Claus"), Insane Clown Posse (see "Jokes about ICP")
  10. Idiosyncratic pop culture additions: A link was added from Gettysburg Address to 4 score and 7 years ago; also, Washington Monument had some "pop culture" added to it
  11. Attempt to circumvent VfD through newly-invented policy: SamuraiClinton felt that the Home Alone article needed to be split out into various different articles (one for each sequel, one for each video game, etc.) with the main article being a disambiguation page. Rather than try for consensus on the article's talk page, he nominated it for deletion, even though he didn't want it deleted. A short time later, he attempted to create new policy with "Votes for Disambiguation," a process apparently parallel to and independent of VfD. All pages and the template associated with Votes for Disambiguation were later deleted.
  12. Attempt to circumvent VfD through brute force: SamuraiClinton feels strongly that Autosexuality is the same thing as Homosexuality, and nominated the former article for deletion. After an overwhelming keep consensus poured in, he unilaterally merged the contents of Autosexuality into Homosexuality, redirected the former to the latter and removed the former's VfD notice, and actually closed the VfD discussion prematurely as though he were an administrator and contrary to current consensus.
  13. Sockpuppetry: SamuraiClinton's admitted sockpuppet is User:SuperDude115. He first claimed that SuperDude was just someone who "lives on the other side of town" but later admitted to this behavior, perhaps inadvertantly, on Lucky's talk page, here and here. SuperDude115 has been used to support SamuraiClinton's articles on VfD and to continue with his disruptive editing; this occurred for only a short period before it was noticed.

As noted above, most of the evidence listed here is merely a representative sample of SamuraiClinton's contributions. There are many more articles and edits that fit into these categories; I have kept it short for readability's sake.

Applicable policies[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:No original research
  2. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
  3. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base
  4. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, specifically item #5 as it pertains to neologisms (newly coined words).
  5. Policy outlined in Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_Deletion

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

  1. SamuraiClinton's talk page has many messages from many other editors, mostly with complaints about his edits or advice about how to make better edits.
  2. In particular, Lucky 6.9 has made multiple attempts to reach out to SamuraiClinton and tutor him on proper Wiki style; he has been ignored every time.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. androidtalk 02:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Let's tread lightly. I'm not aware of an instance where SamuraiClinton has been rude to another editor. He seems like a nice person who genuinely wants to contribute, but attempts to help him improve his edits have failed. Nearly everything he writes has to be cleaned up in some way, and he's had at least 35 articles deleted (both VfD and speedy). I made a list of problematic articles of his at User:Rhobite/SamuraiClinton articles. I don't know what the solution is, but let's be nice. Rhobite 02:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. He has been nice and extremely enthusiastic. I almost hate doing this, but virtually all of my concerns have gone ignored and the bizarre edits, strange articles and unilateral attempts at policy change just keep coming. Agree strongly with Netoholic, Android and Rhobite that this shouldn't be viewed as a witch hunt. Sam, this is is intended to help you. A lot of folks feel this way. We want to help. The rest is up to you. - Lucky 6.9 03:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. --SPUI (talk) 15:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Concur with Rhobite - keep this civil and constructive. -- Netoholic @ 02:58, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
  2. I concur. He has been a nice and enthusiastic editor. But most of the time he takes matters into his own hands and against policy. There is nothing wrong with users being bold, but he goes 180 degrees against the policies. I have nominated a few of his contributions for deletion, and merged or improved some of his new articles. I also feel bad about doing this, but we need to help him follow Wikipedia's rules and policies. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. RickK 04:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) His behavior is ... odd. RickK 04:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Binadot 04:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- I entirely agree. He just doesn't seem to understand policy, which would be excusable if he were willing to actually learn it. But so far he's been completely uncooperative. I doubt he even reads our comments on his talk page. For some reason I can't quite comprehend, contributors like SamuraiClinton seem to have an immunity to the subtle social pressure that regulates 99% of Wikipedia's users. They keep right on editing and brewing trouble until we physically force them to start discussing the matter on our terms. It's unfortunate, but necessary.
  5. Radiant_* 09:06, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC), although I do not really see a solution at the moment. By the way, has Sam been notified of this RfC?
    • I left a note on his talk page shortly after posting the RfC. androidtalk 12:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. SamuraiClinton has been making a lot of work for others to clean up after. Net negative effect on the 'pedia. —Korath (Talk) 13:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. DropDeadGorgias (talk) I have to agree. If I'm ever bored and don't have anything to do at the moment, I know I can find work by going through Samurai's User Contributions. I would also like to dispute another kind of article not previously covered, and that's articles that are ridiculously vague. Check out [2], content was "Just A Friend is a comedic and romantic rap/hip hop song. This song was made a while ago. As of this millennium, some hip-hop musician named Mario (artist) covered this song." I seriously can't tell if this guy is well-intentioned or not, but if I saw the same edits from an anonymous IP I would assume they were vandalism. --DropDeadGorgias (talk)
    I attempted to capture the ridiculously vague aspect in the poorly fact-checked category above, although I wasn't very clear and my second example wasn't the greatest. androidtalk 21:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Concur with Rhobite. I hate to discourage anyone, but we need to discourage creation of articles like the (deleted) article Clunky cartridge button (in part: "The NES was the first and only well-known game system on the market to have the clunky button to push for feeding game cartridges to the pin tongue. This clunky button was not pin-accurate for pin-conduction. Lack of pin conduction could explain why NES had graphic difficulties.") VfD discussion made it clear that this was a problem with content as well as English-language skills. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    SamuraiClinton shouldn't have created that page, but he does deserve some credit for pointing out that this notorious hardware bug of the NES was not included in the Nintendo Entertainment System page. I subsequently added a paragraph on that subject. The problem here wasn't that SamuraiClinton tried to add this information, but that he created an article without first trying to supplement an existing one. Creating unnecessary objects seems to be at the root of a lot of his problematic activities. Firebug 07:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. His edits to North Park and South Park ([3] & [4] are typical; he needs to concentrate on real editing, and lose this urge to be silly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Concur w/ Rhobite above. Slac speak up! 00:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response[edit]

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.

Back then, I have encountered many loopholes with Wikipedia. Nowadays, my intentions are better. You may see several article on VfD, but that should't indicate that much suspicion.

Please, just let me be a free Wikipedian. My intentions are at the zenith of being rightful, not bogus. I may have trouble contrasting approved of and bogus contributions, but I should't be in trouble for making bogus contributions. People say that I am also User:SuperDude115, but I am not. Writing style shouldn't identify one individual, it could reference multiple ones.

Just, stop doing RfCs on me, I am here to contribute articles rightfully, and read them, not to do intentional vandalism on them. --TheSamurai 02:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  • Please see the discussion page. I've made a proposal that may help solve this. - Lucky 6.9 17:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

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.

Uncle G's view[edit]

(Full disclosure: I have tracked SamuraiClinton's contributions several times, and have been one of the many editors who have been tidying up after xem, which has involved a lot of work, and a lot of items coming up for deletion, as I have pointed out elsewhere. I also assisted with compiling User:Android79/SC, as a record of that work. I'm not a complete outsider to the situation at hand, therefore.)

I don't think that SamuraiClinton is necessarily unresponsive to concern. I base this upon the fact that SamuraiClinton was previously the "Mr Suffix" vandal (WP:VIP#Mr._Suffix_.28Neologisms.29) and did respond to concerns about that (User_talk:SamuraiClinton#Neologisms) and has shown improvement. Comparing xyr edits now to what xyr edits used to be like originally, there is a definite improvement. (Random examples from the past 100 contributions: Beavis & Butthead Do America is a reasonable redirect, as is She Blinded me with Science, albeit that the target article could do with cleanup in both tone and grammar.)

Some of SamuraiClinton's behaviour seems to stem from a misunderstanding of our processes. Xe changed xyr signature between TheSamurai and GoofyGuy apparently because xe misunderstood the relationship between signatures and user accounts (to my reading apparently believing that changing the former changed the latter — see User_talk:Android79/TalkArchive000#More_about_the_Nickname_GoofyGuy). Votes for disambiguation similarly seemed to stem from the (not entirely uncommon, it has to be said, given that it has a Meta page) misunderstanding that we vote on everything.

Unfortunately, I cannot locate the talk page, but I recall one user voicing the suspicion that SamuraiClinton might well be among our very youngest users (although this is apparently belied by the fact that some of xyr contributions appear to me to be written as if from direct personal experience stretching as far back as the 1980s — I played NES when I was really little, and we have undergone some problems that we remember it having. from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clunky cartridge button for example). In that case, some sort of supervisory arrangement may be needed, as has happened in similar situations before.

SamuraiClinton is prolific, and a source of a disproportionate amount of cleanup work, especially when xe misguidedly tries to help us by giving us infrastructural elements that we don't need (such as Template:nn). Some of xyr output has been speculative, or highly dubious, or entirely trivial, or inappropriately placed, or inappropriately phrased. On the other hand, other contributions have been reasonable, and SamuraiClinton has not been rude or destructive. Furthermore: As the original creator of one of the very articles that is listed in the "Applicable policies" section above, who took matters into my own hands and sat down and wrote it, it would be hypocritical of me to say that taking matters into one's own hands was inherently wrong. ☺ It just needs to be done with a great deal more forethought than SamuraiClinton is putting into it.

Like Rhobite and Radiant!, I am unsure of what the best resolution to this stuation is.

Uncle G 16:18, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Excellent summary. I agree completely. Rhobite 20:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I second that. Thanks to DropDeadGorgias for pointing out a concern that I shared as well. - Lucky 6.9 20:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Thanks Uncle G for all the research. My exposure to SamuraiClinton et al has left me frustrated that so little input could result in so much work for the cleanup crew. Genuinely endorse, hydnjo talk 00:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. I too have reviewed the user's contributions, and Uncle G summarizes the problems well. SamuraiClinton strikes me as earnest, enthusiastic, and entirely clueless. I do not think s/he is deliberately trolling; I do think s/he is probably too young, mentally, to know any better. S/he reminds me strongly of User:Pumpie. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. I think Uncle G hit the bull's eye with his view of the situation. Sjakkalle 06:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Radiant_* 07:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Excellent summary. JuntungWu 03:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Agreed completely. I don't think SamuraiClinton is malicious; he just needs some firm guidance. Firebug 07:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. I was asked by User:Lucky 6.9 to look at this, and I must say that this summary is something that I can agree with. Older contributors sometimes forget that new energy is a good thing, and sometimes just needs to be guided. Burgundavia 09:48, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.