The result was no consensus. not an attack article, not an hoax, discuss a merge in talk Secret account 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of
WP:CSD, but can also go to
WP:AFD otherwise. Article has false (fabricated?) info intended to disparage its subject, is not otherwise notable, is inadequately sourced, has multiple problems relating to Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history.
Thör
hammer
07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Speedy Delete - Comment: False (fabricated?) information This article is almost 1600 words, 1300 of which are essentially "fluff" or minutiae slightly doctored up from an NCAA infractions report (is anyone ever actually going to read those 1300 words? - please use
WP:COMMON SENSE - if not, try to read it!) . Factual, yes, but fluff nonetheless (see
WP:NOT#INFO - Statistics and News Reports). Of the remaining 300 or so words, the most important statement is "Clemson is the first and only football program to be placed on probation the year after winning a national title." The only problem with this statement is: It's totally false (which pretty much makes adding a
citation needed tag ineffective). Even a cursory amount of research by the author would have revealed this. Perform a LexisNexis search or even cross reference the
College Football Data Warehouse with the
NCAA Legislative Database and in a few minutes you can easily find at least nine other instances in which an NCAA Division I Football team was reprimanded by the NCAA or placed on probation for violations preceding the team winning a National Championship (see list of instances below - Probations After an NCAA Division I Football National Championship). At least two of these factually refute the statement made by the author (Auburn in 1957, Texas in 1963). The difference in the remainder of the instances are largely investigation timing issues on the part of the NCAA Infractions Committee. So not only is the statement factually false (not merely inaccurate, but patently false) based on the two specific accounts, but the remaining accounts also make the statement semantically irrelevant. And this is the single most important statement the author attempts to make in the entire article. This statement was either made up by the author or quoted from an unreliable source (which the author failed to cite). I am guessing that this was an attempt to create the illusion of notability(?), besmirch the reputation of Clemson University, or both.
Comment - The 1300 words on individual infractions were deleted by User:B due to copyright issues. That pretty much leaves this article as a stub, and when you consider the false material just discussed there isn't really anything left.-- Thör hammer 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Team | NCAA Championship/Probation Information |
---|---|
Notre Dame | National Championship in 1953 - NCAA violations in football and basketball and NCAA reprimand after football National Championship in 1953 |
Ohio State | National Championship in 1954 - NCAA probation for violations occurring between 1951 and 1955 |
Oklahoma | National Championship in 1955 and 1956 - NCAA probation for two years beginning in 1955. |
Oklahoma | National Championship in 1985, NCAA violations and probation for three years beginning in 1988/1989 for violations occurring in 1984-1986. The initial NCAA inquiry was in 1985. |
Auburn | National Championship in 1957 - NCAA probation for three years beginning in 1958 |
Texas | National Championship in 1963 - NCAA probation for 1 year starting in 1964 for recruiting violations |
Clemson | National Championship in 1981 - NCAA probation for 2 years starting in 1982 |
University of Miami | co-National Championship in 1991, NCAA violations and probation for violations occurring from 1985 through 1995 (probation started in 1995) |
University of Washington | co-National Championship in 1991, 2 years probation starting in 1994 for infractions dating from 1987 though 1992 |
Florida State University | National Championship in 1993, 1 year NCAA probation beginning in 1996 for activities from 1992 to 1994 |
*Disclaimer - there are potentially others, this was not an exhaustive search (and please forgive any minor errors - I did this on the fly) |
Comment: Notability?: The next issue with this article (and potentially others like it) is its lack of notability. A quick search of the NCAA Legislative Database (referenced by the author in the article) reveals 236 "major infraction cases" in Division I football since the NCAA started keeping records on infractions in 1953. If a search is done on all Division I sports you will find 501 major infraction cases (596 major infraction cases in all NCAA sports divisions - an average of over 11 per year since 1953). In my recollection, only one has ever garnered sufficient pubic attention to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article, and that one was the recruiting situation with Southern Methodist University in 1987 where the NCAA invoked the 'death penalty'. Anecdotally I think the public tends to remember the teams that win National Championships and pretty much lets the recruiting problems slide (kind of how we are with our presidents and interns - that would be WP:SARCASM ;) - cigar anyone?). Of the 596 cases mentioned, what exactly is the author saying that makes this one special (besides the false statement above)? I don't see it in the article. NCAA investigations and probations are very common things (kind of like speeding tickets for colleges) which would tend to make the subject non-notable. The University of South Carolina (apparently the school favored by the author) is currently serving a three year NCAA probation for violations in its own football program. Why not an article about that one, too? Apparently, the author feels that the probation of the rival school for only two years was more significant, which tends to make this article heavily POV (could this one be considered a candidate for speedy deletion under {{db-attack}}? - this article appears to have been written only to disparage its subject). One interesting (rhetorical and common sense) question on notability here is: If you asked the fans of the teams winning National Championships whether they would trade in their National Championship trophy to erase the NCAA probation from their record, would they say YES? I would guess NOT.
If you approach the notability issue from the pure general notability guideline point of view, in my opinion the article fails to measure up for three reasons:
More importantly than the general guideline is that notability is not temporary. I'm sure there was sufficient coverage of this at the time in 1982, but who was talking about it 5 or 10 years later (other than University of South Carolina fans) much less 25 years later. How long will those same fans be talking about their current NCAA football probation (since we are looking for balance/NPOV here)? And how notable is this one to the general public considering the other 595 major infraction cases? In Wikipedia's own words: "Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community." In this case that evidence does not exist.
Because of these notability shortcomings, I have also tagged the article with the {{notability}} template. There is little evidence that further work on this article will increase its notability, and certainly no indication that future coverage will do the same.
Comment: Bad Article Idea?: The next problem with this article stems from the numbers I mentioned above regarding NCAA infraction cases. Besides the lack of merit from the article truth, quality, and notability points of view, I think this article is a horrible idea from the NCAA Football Project point of view (can you imagine potentially having a new article each time a different NCAA infraction case comes up?) From WP:List of bad article ideas, there are several other points that might be instructive here. They are:
It would probably be a VERY, VERY good idea for some of the WikiProject College Football team members to chime in on this discussion (I will put an invitation on the project talk page). If this is the type of article that is going to be permitted, we are opening a Pandora's box of bad possibilities. This does not help the WikiPedia project at all.
NOTE: The edit history below for this editor and suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets is provided for use by the closing admin per
WP:AFD guidelines, and we don't need to waste a lot of debate over the edit history when considering the deletion request.
Comment:
Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?: One of the last points that needs to be considered here is the contribution history of the author (while
assuming good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary). Normally, only the merits of the article are relevant in deletion discussions, but
WP:AFD specifically states that "it is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin." Reviewing the author's edit history it is clear that the author (who IS using a new user account) was previously represented by several IP addresses (either directly or as sockpuppet/meatpuppet) prior to registering for the
User:ViperNerd account around 01/12/2008 and publishing this article. Some of those IP's are:
65.188.38.31,
65.188.37.65,
62.232.41.140,
66.56.149.230
201.155.32.234,
69.60.114.58,
89.96.176.162, and possibly
161.156.99.11. Combinations of these IPs have been blocked at least 6 times in a little over a month for edit warring, personal attacks, user space vandalism, disruptive edits, incivility, harassment, and general trolling. The most recent block expired on 01/14/2008 (you might notice that the author registered the new account and published the article before the expiration of his most recent IP block). When reviewing the contrib history, pay particular attention to
65.188.38.31 contribs in
this deletion discussion. It is apparent from this discussion that this user did not create this article out of genuine desire to help the Wikipedia project. Perhaps he is
disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?
Wikipedia is not a battleground. Based on the use of sockpuppets/meatpuppets and the disruptive edit history, I would also suggest that this article be
protected against re-creation. Again, I am reviewing the edit history of the author because WP:AFD states that it is acceptable to do so for the sake of the closing admin. It would be a good thing if this user could be brought to direct his time and energy to more productive tasks on Wikipedia, but he just isn't getting the point.
Given that any user can change their stripes, we have to make allowances that perhaps these IPs have registered to change their ways. The most recent edits of new User:ViperNerd don't reflect that this is the case. Three recent contribs included the following:
One interesting (and humorous) point about the last edit comment is that it was directed at User:ClueBot (which was rolling back changes the author made to a semi-protected page with a new account). Pretty disruptive to harass the digital help, but I'm sure the Wiki-server won't complain about being called a "Tater". ("Tater" is a local term used disparagingly by some University of South Carolina fans against what they think are Clemson Tiger supporters).
Finally: WP:Harrassment: The final point that I will make here (whether it is taken in the context of the deletion debate or not regarding WP:AFD allowance for noting the contribution history of new users) is the harrassment issued from this user against other members of the Wikipedia community (and one in particular - and he doesn't deserve it). I haven't been contributing on Wikipedia all that long, but I can tell that there are some incredible people doing awesome things here, and they don't deserve it either. This author is a cyber bully who uses every opportunity to harass and Wikistalks those who make edits he disapproves of (including BOTs and Admins). He epitomizes the tendentious editor. If you are skeptical, please read these recent edits by the author:
Recent threatening/harassing/disruptive edit history for User:ViperNerd and associated sockpuppets/meatpuppets |
---|
I feel truly sorry for anyone who has a life as empty and pathetic as yours. |
Keep apologizing, Tater. Couldn't help but notice since you were called out on it that you've tried to make it look like you care more about adding to Clemson's articles than violating the NPOV rule on Carolina's articles. Keep it up. You're being watched. |
A quick Google search reveals that Clemson University had their own steroid scandal in 1985 which led to coaches being convicted and several University administrators (including the school's President!) to resign. I'll register and get to work on that article alongside another about the Clemson football recruiting scandal that led to their probation in 1982. |
Thanks for clearing that up. I'll go register and get to work on the 1985 Clemson steroid scandal article and 1982 Clemson recruiting scandal article which will be factual, notable and well-documented. So I'm sure I won't have to worry about anyone deleting them for any reason. Oh, and I'll also mimic CobraGeek and place links to these 2 articles in EVERY OTHER Wiki article dealing with Clemson University, athletic-related or not. |
Anyone with a pair of eyes and a half a brain can skim over the userpage of the creator of this article and see why it was written and also why no assumption of good faith should be tendered this user. They have made their agenda on Wiki QUITE clear. I could write my own attack piece on Clemson and make it well-sourced, but I have no desire to do so, because that's not what Wiki is here for...last I heard. |
Actually, what I think I'll do is this. I'll register and write my own article with well-sourced, notable information and title it Clemson University Football cheating scandal. Is that really what you want here? Because that's the only fair way to go. Is that seriously what you're saying this site should degenerate into? |
POV additions by avowed Clemson fans aren't needed in a USC article. Take your hate to a sports message board, it isn't appropriate for Wiki. |
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
Carolina-Clemson Rivalry, you will be
blocked from editing.
JdeJ (
talk)
15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
reply I am EDITING, take your bias away from articles that you clearly don't know the history about. You have clearly taken sides in this, and aren't suited to make any decisions regarding my edits. Removal of POV edit is clearly within Wiki rules, the added section to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article is IRRELEVANT to the subject being discussed. You lack knowledge of the subject matter to make a call in this case. If you continue to troll my edits, I will be forced to report your actions to an admin. Go find something more useful to do with your time on Wiki. |
It's all about rubbing it in for this jerk. [1] |
That pretty much makes the point clear, but there is alot more if you look. And this just keeps going on and on and on. The author pretty well confesses his intentions to generate this attack article at least four times in this recent edit history. I'm pretty sure there are few members of the Wiki community who would assume good faith on the part of this editor after viewing this contrib history. Is he disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Think about the time and energy wasted by reasonable, good faith editors and Admins having to deal with this constantly. It is possible for this editor to pull back from the brink, but he needs to realize the need first. -- Thör hammer 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Potential solutions if AfD outcome is MERGE |
---|
Merge into a general article about NCAA football recruiting violations. - This solution certainly sounds good initially, but I wonder what the article ends up looking like when the number of cases mentioned above is taken into account(?). Could get nasty, could potentially be a very long page. There is currently already an article on the NCAA that includes rules violations and the Division I FBS institutions currently on probation (and the link is to the school article which I don't believe is the best target - I'll fix these). It is a good, brief, interesting article written in NPOV fashion, and it just calls it "Rules violations" instead of "recruiting scandal" or the like (so it would naturally encompass whatever the nature of the violations were). That part certainly won't satisfy anyone who is foaming at the mouth to make it an attacking style of article, so it sounds like a natural fit to add another section under Division I FBS institutions on probation and call it something like Past Division I probations. That could link to a general NCAA probation article that would consolidate all of the notable NCAA cases in one place (football, basketball, or whatever - a very tidy solution). One interesting thing about the NCAA article is that it does have a link to the NCAA death penalty, and there is a good section there on the Southern Methodist University case, as well as the original Kentucky Basketball death penalty from the 1950's. This is definitely an easily transitioned solution for a merge of this article that fits the way the articles are currently layed out on Wikipedia (probably the best that you are going to get). With this as a proposed solution, I like this potential solution so much that I would change to a Keep/Merge request if we go that route. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT RESOLUTION TO THIS AfD. Thör hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply |
Merge to Clemson Tigers football. - Currently, the Clemson Tigers football article isn't much more than a shell, and merging this article with that one essentially turns it into this article under a different name. Not a good solution. Thör hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply |
Merge into relevant season article. - Good bit of discussion above about this. I agree with those above who say it doesn't make sense because some of the probations apply to violations carrying over several seasons. Also not a good solution. Thör hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply |
The result was no consensus. not an attack article, not an hoax, discuss a merge in talk Secret account 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of
WP:CSD, but can also go to
WP:AFD otherwise. Article has false (fabricated?) info intended to disparage its subject, is not otherwise notable, is inadequately sourced, has multiple problems relating to Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history.
Thör
hammer
07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Speedy Delete - Comment: False (fabricated?) information This article is almost 1600 words, 1300 of which are essentially "fluff" or minutiae slightly doctored up from an NCAA infractions report (is anyone ever actually going to read those 1300 words? - please use
WP:COMMON SENSE - if not, try to read it!) . Factual, yes, but fluff nonetheless (see
WP:NOT#INFO - Statistics and News Reports). Of the remaining 300 or so words, the most important statement is "Clemson is the first and only football program to be placed on probation the year after winning a national title." The only problem with this statement is: It's totally false (which pretty much makes adding a
citation needed tag ineffective). Even a cursory amount of research by the author would have revealed this. Perform a LexisNexis search or even cross reference the
College Football Data Warehouse with the
NCAA Legislative Database and in a few minutes you can easily find at least nine other instances in which an NCAA Division I Football team was reprimanded by the NCAA or placed on probation for violations preceding the team winning a National Championship (see list of instances below - Probations After an NCAA Division I Football National Championship). At least two of these factually refute the statement made by the author (Auburn in 1957, Texas in 1963). The difference in the remainder of the instances are largely investigation timing issues on the part of the NCAA Infractions Committee. So not only is the statement factually false (not merely inaccurate, but patently false) based on the two specific accounts, but the remaining accounts also make the statement semantically irrelevant. And this is the single most important statement the author attempts to make in the entire article. This statement was either made up by the author or quoted from an unreliable source (which the author failed to cite). I am guessing that this was an attempt to create the illusion of notability(?), besmirch the reputation of Clemson University, or both.
Comment - The 1300 words on individual infractions were deleted by User:B due to copyright issues. That pretty much leaves this article as a stub, and when you consider the false material just discussed there isn't really anything left.-- Thör hammer 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Team | NCAA Championship/Probation Information |
---|---|
Notre Dame | National Championship in 1953 - NCAA violations in football and basketball and NCAA reprimand after football National Championship in 1953 |
Ohio State | National Championship in 1954 - NCAA probation for violations occurring between 1951 and 1955 |
Oklahoma | National Championship in 1955 and 1956 - NCAA probation for two years beginning in 1955. |
Oklahoma | National Championship in 1985, NCAA violations and probation for three years beginning in 1988/1989 for violations occurring in 1984-1986. The initial NCAA inquiry was in 1985. |
Auburn | National Championship in 1957 - NCAA probation for three years beginning in 1958 |
Texas | National Championship in 1963 - NCAA probation for 1 year starting in 1964 for recruiting violations |
Clemson | National Championship in 1981 - NCAA probation for 2 years starting in 1982 |
University of Miami | co-National Championship in 1991, NCAA violations and probation for violations occurring from 1985 through 1995 (probation started in 1995) |
University of Washington | co-National Championship in 1991, 2 years probation starting in 1994 for infractions dating from 1987 though 1992 |
Florida State University | National Championship in 1993, 1 year NCAA probation beginning in 1996 for activities from 1992 to 1994 |
*Disclaimer - there are potentially others, this was not an exhaustive search (and please forgive any minor errors - I did this on the fly) |
Comment: Notability?: The next issue with this article (and potentially others like it) is its lack of notability. A quick search of the NCAA Legislative Database (referenced by the author in the article) reveals 236 "major infraction cases" in Division I football since the NCAA started keeping records on infractions in 1953. If a search is done on all Division I sports you will find 501 major infraction cases (596 major infraction cases in all NCAA sports divisions - an average of over 11 per year since 1953). In my recollection, only one has ever garnered sufficient pubic attention to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article, and that one was the recruiting situation with Southern Methodist University in 1987 where the NCAA invoked the 'death penalty'. Anecdotally I think the public tends to remember the teams that win National Championships and pretty much lets the recruiting problems slide (kind of how we are with our presidents and interns - that would be WP:SARCASM ;) - cigar anyone?). Of the 596 cases mentioned, what exactly is the author saying that makes this one special (besides the false statement above)? I don't see it in the article. NCAA investigations and probations are very common things (kind of like speeding tickets for colleges) which would tend to make the subject non-notable. The University of South Carolina (apparently the school favored by the author) is currently serving a three year NCAA probation for violations in its own football program. Why not an article about that one, too? Apparently, the author feels that the probation of the rival school for only two years was more significant, which tends to make this article heavily POV (could this one be considered a candidate for speedy deletion under {{db-attack}}? - this article appears to have been written only to disparage its subject). One interesting (rhetorical and common sense) question on notability here is: If you asked the fans of the teams winning National Championships whether they would trade in their National Championship trophy to erase the NCAA probation from their record, would they say YES? I would guess NOT.
If you approach the notability issue from the pure general notability guideline point of view, in my opinion the article fails to measure up for three reasons:
More importantly than the general guideline is that notability is not temporary. I'm sure there was sufficient coverage of this at the time in 1982, but who was talking about it 5 or 10 years later (other than University of South Carolina fans) much less 25 years later. How long will those same fans be talking about their current NCAA football probation (since we are looking for balance/NPOV here)? And how notable is this one to the general public considering the other 595 major infraction cases? In Wikipedia's own words: "Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community." In this case that evidence does not exist.
Because of these notability shortcomings, I have also tagged the article with the {{notability}} template. There is little evidence that further work on this article will increase its notability, and certainly no indication that future coverage will do the same.
Comment: Bad Article Idea?: The next problem with this article stems from the numbers I mentioned above regarding NCAA infraction cases. Besides the lack of merit from the article truth, quality, and notability points of view, I think this article is a horrible idea from the NCAA Football Project point of view (can you imagine potentially having a new article each time a different NCAA infraction case comes up?) From WP:List of bad article ideas, there are several other points that might be instructive here. They are:
It would probably be a VERY, VERY good idea for some of the WikiProject College Football team members to chime in on this discussion (I will put an invitation on the project talk page). If this is the type of article that is going to be permitted, we are opening a Pandora's box of bad possibilities. This does not help the WikiPedia project at all.
NOTE: The edit history below for this editor and suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets is provided for use by the closing admin per
WP:AFD guidelines, and we don't need to waste a lot of debate over the edit history when considering the deletion request.
Comment:
Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?: One of the last points that needs to be considered here is the contribution history of the author (while
assuming good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary). Normally, only the merits of the article are relevant in deletion discussions, but
WP:AFD specifically states that "it is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin." Reviewing the author's edit history it is clear that the author (who IS using a new user account) was previously represented by several IP addresses (either directly or as sockpuppet/meatpuppet) prior to registering for the
User:ViperNerd account around 01/12/2008 and publishing this article. Some of those IP's are:
65.188.38.31,
65.188.37.65,
62.232.41.140,
66.56.149.230
201.155.32.234,
69.60.114.58,
89.96.176.162, and possibly
161.156.99.11. Combinations of these IPs have been blocked at least 6 times in a little over a month for edit warring, personal attacks, user space vandalism, disruptive edits, incivility, harassment, and general trolling. The most recent block expired on 01/14/2008 (you might notice that the author registered the new account and published the article before the expiration of his most recent IP block). When reviewing the contrib history, pay particular attention to
65.188.38.31 contribs in
this deletion discussion. It is apparent from this discussion that this user did not create this article out of genuine desire to help the Wikipedia project. Perhaps he is
disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?
Wikipedia is not a battleground. Based on the use of sockpuppets/meatpuppets and the disruptive edit history, I would also suggest that this article be
protected against re-creation. Again, I am reviewing the edit history of the author because WP:AFD states that it is acceptable to do so for the sake of the closing admin. It would be a good thing if this user could be brought to direct his time and energy to more productive tasks on Wikipedia, but he just isn't getting the point.
Given that any user can change their stripes, we have to make allowances that perhaps these IPs have registered to change their ways. The most recent edits of new User:ViperNerd don't reflect that this is the case. Three recent contribs included the following:
One interesting (and humorous) point about the last edit comment is that it was directed at User:ClueBot (which was rolling back changes the author made to a semi-protected page with a new account). Pretty disruptive to harass the digital help, but I'm sure the Wiki-server won't complain about being called a "Tater". ("Tater" is a local term used disparagingly by some University of South Carolina fans against what they think are Clemson Tiger supporters).
Finally: WP:Harrassment: The final point that I will make here (whether it is taken in the context of the deletion debate or not regarding WP:AFD allowance for noting the contribution history of new users) is the harrassment issued from this user against other members of the Wikipedia community (and one in particular - and he doesn't deserve it). I haven't been contributing on Wikipedia all that long, but I can tell that there are some incredible people doing awesome things here, and they don't deserve it either. This author is a cyber bully who uses every opportunity to harass and Wikistalks those who make edits he disapproves of (including BOTs and Admins). He epitomizes the tendentious editor. If you are skeptical, please read these recent edits by the author:
Recent threatening/harassing/disruptive edit history for User:ViperNerd and associated sockpuppets/meatpuppets |
---|
I feel truly sorry for anyone who has a life as empty and pathetic as yours. |
Keep apologizing, Tater. Couldn't help but notice since you were called out on it that you've tried to make it look like you care more about adding to Clemson's articles than violating the NPOV rule on Carolina's articles. Keep it up. You're being watched. |
A quick Google search reveals that Clemson University had their own steroid scandal in 1985 which led to coaches being convicted and several University administrators (including the school's President!) to resign. I'll register and get to work on that article alongside another about the Clemson football recruiting scandal that led to their probation in 1982. |
Thanks for clearing that up. I'll go register and get to work on the 1985 Clemson steroid scandal article and 1982 Clemson recruiting scandal article which will be factual, notable and well-documented. So I'm sure I won't have to worry about anyone deleting them for any reason. Oh, and I'll also mimic CobraGeek and place links to these 2 articles in EVERY OTHER Wiki article dealing with Clemson University, athletic-related or not. |
Anyone with a pair of eyes and a half a brain can skim over the userpage of the creator of this article and see why it was written and also why no assumption of good faith should be tendered this user. They have made their agenda on Wiki QUITE clear. I could write my own attack piece on Clemson and make it well-sourced, but I have no desire to do so, because that's not what Wiki is here for...last I heard. |
Actually, what I think I'll do is this. I'll register and write my own article with well-sourced, notable information and title it Clemson University Football cheating scandal. Is that really what you want here? Because that's the only fair way to go. Is that seriously what you're saying this site should degenerate into? |
POV additions by avowed Clemson fans aren't needed in a USC article. Take your hate to a sports message board, it isn't appropriate for Wiki. |
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
Carolina-Clemson Rivalry, you will be
blocked from editing.
JdeJ (
talk)
15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
reply I am EDITING, take your bias away from articles that you clearly don't know the history about. You have clearly taken sides in this, and aren't suited to make any decisions regarding my edits. Removal of POV edit is clearly within Wiki rules, the added section to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article is IRRELEVANT to the subject being discussed. You lack knowledge of the subject matter to make a call in this case. If you continue to troll my edits, I will be forced to report your actions to an admin. Go find something more useful to do with your time on Wiki. |
It's all about rubbing it in for this jerk. [1] |
That pretty much makes the point clear, but there is alot more if you look. And this just keeps going on and on and on. The author pretty well confesses his intentions to generate this attack article at least four times in this recent edit history. I'm pretty sure there are few members of the Wiki community who would assume good faith on the part of this editor after viewing this contrib history. Is he disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Think about the time and energy wasted by reasonable, good faith editors and Admins having to deal with this constantly. It is possible for this editor to pull back from the brink, but he needs to realize the need first. -- Thör hammer 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Potential solutions if AfD outcome is MERGE |
---|
Merge into a general article about NCAA football recruiting violations. - This solution certainly sounds good initially, but I wonder what the article ends up looking like when the number of cases mentioned above is taken into account(?). Could get nasty, could potentially be a very long page. There is currently already an article on the NCAA that includes rules violations and the Division I FBS institutions currently on probation (and the link is to the school article which I don't believe is the best target - I'll fix these). It is a good, brief, interesting article written in NPOV fashion, and it just calls it "Rules violations" instead of "recruiting scandal" or the like (so it would naturally encompass whatever the nature of the violations were). That part certainly won't satisfy anyone who is foaming at the mouth to make it an attacking style of article, so it sounds like a natural fit to add another section under Division I FBS institutions on probation and call it something like Past Division I probations. That could link to a general NCAA probation article that would consolidate all of the notable NCAA cases in one place (football, basketball, or whatever - a very tidy solution). One interesting thing about the NCAA article is that it does have a link to the NCAA death penalty, and there is a good section there on the Southern Methodist University case, as well as the original Kentucky Basketball death penalty from the 1950's. This is definitely an easily transitioned solution for a merge of this article that fits the way the articles are currently layed out on Wikipedia (probably the best that you are going to get). With this as a proposed solution, I like this potential solution so much that I would change to a Keep/Merge request if we go that route. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT RESOLUTION TO THIS AfD. Thör hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply |
Merge to Clemson Tigers football. - Currently, the Clemson Tigers football article isn't much more than a shell, and merging this article with that one essentially turns it into this article under a different name. Not a good solution. Thör hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply |
Merge into relevant season article. - Good bit of discussion above about this. I agree with those above who say it doesn't make sense because some of the probations apply to violations carrying over several seasons. Also not a good solution. Thör hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply |