|
User:DegenFarang has declared that he intends to remove all "spammy" external links that are not official sites or tournament results. he has thus far removed links to Cardplayer and Pokerlistings, Pokernewsdaily, Launchpoker and others. Some of these have already been reverted, but this assertion that everything is spam except official sites and results is spam should be addressed here. This notion is absurd in my opinion, and most likely just another example of DegenFarang's tendatious editing, but I would apprecaite other editors weighing in to agree that authoratative, expert, quality websites like Cardplayer and at least a few dozen other sites are valuable links to have in articles where appropriate. 2005 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- These are clearly and obviously ridiculous edits driven by some kind of personal agenda on the part of User:DegenFarang. The sites in question are used as references all over the place, both online and offline. And before someone accuses me of making a personal attack, take a look at the user's edit history. It's all well and good to "assume good faith," but when an editor repeatedly demonstrates that he's not editing in good faith, something needs to be done. Rray (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm agreeing with 2005 and Rray; the majority of the sites that are being given in the eternal links aren't "spammy," and contain relevant, interesting material. I also cannot help but notice DegenFarang's apparent grudge against 2005, what with the constant harrowing regarding edits and changes to his talk page. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- No doubt you'll soon be accussed of being my sockpuppet. Good luck... 2005 (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I plan on adding my input further down the line, but couldn't resist saying that your comment literally made me lol. TheTakeover (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- A number of the sites in question were also used as references, e.g. poker-babes.com at Badugi. I would welcome opinions whether the sites in question are useful as reliable sources. Amalthea 14:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- It depends which site. Poker-Babes.com is a self-published source which should not be used at all anywhere imo given how aggressively it has been spammed on Wikipedia. I had been used as an external link on nearly every poker player BLP and more than 200 articles in total until I finally got permission to remove them all. As user2005 added 90%+ of the links you can imagine how hard he and his sock and meat puppets fought to prevent that. DegenFarang (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- See below. It is a website owned by the largest poker site in the world, and fronted by someone the New York Times, Times of London and Associated Press aknowledge as an expert. 2005 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- You love to drag out that word 'expert' when speaking about Rosario and Poker-Babes. One is not an expert in all things and no site is an expert on any subject contained on it. She was quoted as an expert on women in poker. That doesn't give you license to play the 'expert' card every time you want to use her for a reference for anything she wrote about on her blog, such as casino operators or poker strategy or the rules of poker. DegenFarang (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- First it should be noted user2005 was just banned for highly suspicious sockpuppet/meatpuppet behavior and the investigation is ongoing. At least five administrators said he was clearly using three accounts to create the appearance of a consensus when there wasn't one. We should thus be very skeptical here about whether consensus is real or manufactured. Rray in particular is a person who always shows up on these discussion and his opinion imo should be ignored and counted as one vote with 2005's, along with all of the other people whose account he controls or recruits to this discussion.
- Regarding the links: if the content has value they can be used as references. The external links are unnecessary unless the information can't be easily quoted in the article, like with tournament results. 2005 cherry picked the most reputable sources but there are tons of others that few people have heard of with random domain names and next to no traffic. Allowing any site which does a 'profile' or interview with a player to have an external link on that players article is just going to invite tons of spam (and in fact it already has, and I'd like to clean it up without needing a huge edit war with 12 of 2005's sock and meat puppets to do so). DegenFarang (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Having read your post again I would actually agree with this: "authoratative, expert, quality websites like Cardplayer and at least a few dozen other sites are valuable links to have in articles where appropriate". However I think 'at least a few dozen others' is the problem. There are not a few dozen 'authoritative, expert, quality websites like Cardplayer'. There are about four. All the rest is the spam that I'm referring to. --DegenFarang (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- First, User:2005 was not banned. He was blocked, temporarily, and in error. That's why the block was lifted early.
- Most of these sites and references have been used for years, and no one besides User:DegenFarang has ever objected to them. If only one person over several years has disagreed with their inclusion, while dozens of other editors have agreed with their inclusion, where does consensus lie?
- When the editor is calling links to sites like Cardplayer as spam, how credible can his objections be? Is it possible that the editor in question is being deliberately disruptive?
- I'm sure you'd be delighted if everyone who disagrees with you was ignored, but that's not how this project works.
- Perhaps you could list the "12" sock and meat puppets that you're referring to? I only saw three or four accusations. Are there are other sock and meat puppets that you haven't accused yet? Or are you waiting until someone else disagrees with you and add them to your list of accusations? That would be a fine McCarthy-esque tactic. Rray (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please focus on content, not editors, everyone. I don't care who did or said what in the past. I care about ending this content dispute. Amalthea 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- If a single disruptive editor is the only person who has a problem with the content, and his sole purpose seems to be to disrupt other editors' hard work, then is it really a content dispute any more? Or has it become something else? Rray (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- poker-babes.com in particular does not seem like a reliable source to me, with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Removing those references and contentious facts sourced by them may absolutely be appropriate. I would not label DegenFarang's edits in that regard as disruptive.
On the other hand, reliable source or not, using pages hosted there as external links may still be appropriate if they have useful content that the respective articles lack, as per WP:EL. Amalthea 16:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Rray is clearly acting as a sock or meat puppet for 2005 here. These accusations and word choices (like the repeated use of 'dozens of other...') are classic 2005. Also notice how 2005 and the other socks/meats are gone but this user who you pronounced 'clean' has taken over. His comments should be removed and his account blocked until this discussion is over. DegenFarang (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of being a sock puppet/meat puppet. The issue has been raised and resolved already, and your continuing accusations amount to personal attacks. Let's discuss content instead. Thanks. Rray (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Because of Degenfarang's refusal to accept consensus, this has been discussed many times before, but Degenfarang continues to ignore the views of everyone else. The site is owned by Pokerstars, the largest poker site in the world. The face of the site is an expert player who has won several poker tournaments in different game variations and has been quoted as an expert on poker in The New York Times, The Times of London, the Associated Press and other reliable sources. The links he is removing are valid expert links, and they aren't even reverenceing anything controversial. In the past more than a dozen editors have added links to the site, including several admins, as edit histories show. They were added by a variety of editors including those who added a single one like Absolon and Awinkler, along with a bunch added when when first creating articles like Sirex98 and more often by the two editors most responsible for building out the poker section of the Wikipedia Essexmutant and again and [href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Rose&oldid=34493037 again] and [href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isabelle_Mercier&oldid=22648633 again] and again, as well as CryptoDerk and again and again and again and againand again for starters. These editors alone have over 40,000 edits between them. While due to changing BLP rules over the past 8 years since, it is no longer a valid reference in BLPs (except for writing by the subject of the article), but it is an excellent resource for definitions, game rules and things like how many cards you get in Badugi. Personally I think the New York Times, London Times ans Associated Press are a better judghe of merit than Degenfarang. 2005 (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your claims of consensus are almost as dubious as your claims that nobody agrees with me. Stop your canvassing and meat puppeting and read what other people are saying and you'll see that lots of people have agreed with me each time this has been brought up. That is why more than 100 links to poker-babes, both as an external link and reference, have been removed. DegenFarang (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC) DegenFarang (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- From my understanding this thread is about external links in general, so why do you almost always insist on bringing up only one, poker-babes? Anyway, many of the links that have been questioned by DegenFarang are reliable sources and anybody that actually knows poker would rarely (if ever) question the authority of CardPlayer or PokerListing. Therefore, I think external links should extend past the official site and tournament results if the external links are relevant to the subject at hand and/or have additional information that might not be included in the actual Wikipedia article. TheTakeover (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why you insist upon asking these questions with this account since we all know you are 2005 (perhaps these accounts allow you to speak civilly to me and ask me questions while you are only willing to attack me on your 2005 account? I'll answer your question anyway: the hundreds of links you added to poker-babes are the most flagrant example of reference and external link spamming there is. Without it, the attention would probably not have been drawn to this issue. Since it is such flagrant and abundant spam it is natural it gets discussed more. However you are correct in that the larger issue is removing all dubious and spammy links to fringe websites and not just poker-babes. DegenFarang (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you act like you are going to answer my question rationally and then proceed to accuse me of being 2005? I, TheTakeover, never added hundreds of links as you suggested. I have only reverted you on a handful. After rereading the rules several times over the past few days, it is my understanding that editors should be assuming good faith while editing, yet you continually don't. TheTakeover (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- 2005, you are making it very obvious this is you again. You didn't address anything I said but instead tried to attack me based upon random details. I answered your question. The reason poker-babes gets mentioned so much is because of the sheer amount of times you spammed it all over Wikipedia. DegenFarang (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Specific content disputes
Rather than reverting any more edits, I've begun three specific discussions on three different articles' talk pages. The information and citations that were removed seem acceptable to me, but there is now a place to discuss the specifics for each of them below. I think the discussions will result in a consensus to restore the removed content.
I'd be grateful for other project members' input. Rray (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Until an editor who is not user2005 or a sock/meat puppet of 2005 shows an interest in these edits I think they should stand. DegenFarang (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any actual discussion of the content and the reasons for its removal from the editor who insists that it be removed. I'd be grateful if the accusations about meat-puppetry ended though. The inquiry into the meat-puppet and sock-puppet issues have already been resolved and closed, unless I'm mistaken. Rray (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- 2005, It has been resolved in that it was decided permanently blocking all of the sock and meat puppets wasn't necessary. Your continued use of them to create the appearance of a consensus however shows that the decision was a poor one. DegenFarang (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be grateful if we could limit our discussions to content issues. Rray (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be grateful if you could stop trying to create consensus by posting with 5+ different accounts. DegenFarang (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Does this mean that you're refusing to discuss content with me? Rray (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Non sock and meat puppet opinions
For clarity I will be reposting all views on this matter besides those of 2005's sock and meat puppets, so a more balanced perspective on where consensus might be can be gained. Please do not post in this section about the validity of the arguments or anything else, I'm simply copy/pasting DegenFarang (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm agreeing with 2005 and Rray; the majority of the sites that are being given in the eternal links aren't "spammy," and contain relevant, interesting material. I also cannot help but notice DegenFarang's apparent grudge against 2005, what with the constant harrowing regarding edits and changes to his talk page. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- poker-babes.com in particular does not seem like a reliable source to me, with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Removing those references and contentious facts sourced by them may absolutely be appropriate. I would not label DegenFarang's edits in that regard as disruptive. On the other hand, reliable source or not, using pages hosted there as external links may still be appropriate if they have useful content that the respective articles lack, as per WP:EL. Amalthea 16:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the links: if the content has value they can be used as references. The external links are unnecessary unless the information can't be easily quoted in the article, like with tournament results. 2005 cherry picked the most reputable sources but there are tons of others that few people have heard of with random domain names and next to no traffic. Allowing any site which does a 'profile' or interview with a player to have an external link on that players article is just going to invite tons of spam (and in fact it already has, and I'd like to clean it up without needing a huge edit war with 12 of 2005's sock and meat puppets to do so). DegenFarang (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- User:DegenFarang has declared that he intends to remove all "spammy" external links that are not official sites or tournament results. he has thus far removed links to Cardplayer and Pokerlistings, Pokernewsdaily, Launchpoker and others. Some of these have already been reverted, but this assertion that everything is spam except official sites and results is spam should be addressed here. This notion is absurd in my opinion, and most likely just another example of DegenFarang's tendatious editing, but I would apprecaite other editors weighing in to agree that authoratative, expert, quality websites like Cardplayer and at least a few dozen other sites are valuable links to have in articles where appropriate. 2005 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
|
