Talk:Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Merger proposal
[edit]I think such a merger would be reasonable. ↜Just me, here, now … 12:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- (Strike above comment. Please see next talkpage section.) ↜Just me, here, now … 04:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but would rearrange this article by shipping those "controversies" in which Craigslist is a party back to the Craigslist article. To be more specific, if the issue is "craigslist sued for allowing discriminatory housing ads" then it does concern craigslist because even as a 3rd party it does concern Craigslist's role in allowing it. On the other hand "woman hires contract killer over Craigslist" does not concern craigslist at all. If she had used the phone, would we have added it to the article on phones? So that one belongs here. I think it's a reasonable distinction. Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please, people, stop creating new pages and redirects on this single topic, and stop renaming the articles without even mentioning it on the talk page, much less without reaching consensus! Шизомби (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Coment: I second Schizombie -- this move was made without any sort of consensus or even a warning that it was being been done. That is not the way most editors here prefer to work. However, now it is here.
- Comment: Frankly, i have doubts about this page's viability as a topic. I agree with Wikidemon that the multipication of events proves no point, whereas a paragraph summarizing criticism of the company's policies (and any resultant legal issues arising from those policies) should remain on the Craigslist page.
- Oppose, but not for the reasons you might think:
- First, i do not think that the Craigslist killer / List of Craigslist killers page should be merged here, but rather that the "killer" page should be blanked and redirected to the Internet killer page, because the information on the List of Craigslist killers page is now a duplicate of the same information located in the much larger and more inclusive Internet killer article. (The reason for this is that while last night's sneaky-cut-and-move episode was underway, i had, after discussion with others in the then-extant talk page for the Craigslist killer page, already moved the Craigslist killer material to the Internet killer page -- because the Craigslist killer page temporarily ceased to exist at one point.) The topic of "Internet killer" is actually not Craigslist -- and the broader topic of internet killers includes people who broadcast deaths and suicides, chat room suicide-homicide pacts, electronic want-ad killers, etc., -- and includes not only true-crime cases, but also the appearance of such crimes in contemporary popular fiction and urban myth. In all honesty, the Internet killer page is where the Craaigslist killer material should have redirected days ago, before this merge proposal, in my opinion, as Craigslist is just a subset of the internet. (Meanwhile, i am aware that the "Internet killer" page has been nominated for Afd, but that is a separate issue, and one that i believe can be successfully overcome, given the ample number of secondary sources availlable on the topic.)
- Second, i think that Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users is a hodge-podge list of lawsuits against the company plus illegal activies by customers -- a disorganized mess of a list masquerading as "controversies" -- and not a viable page, and i am willing to vote for its deletion at any time.
- cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there are no secondary sources on the topic. Please provide just one to prove me wrong. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused, Viriditas. You created THIS page on a very related, perhaps nearly identical topic, yet argue vehemently about there being -- not insufficient 2ndary sources, but absolutely no 2ndary sources that bolster the topic closely related to that of this article you've proposed: Very confusing. Please explain. If the issue is so black and white as your hyperbole would seem to indicate, step back and tell us what basic assuption we're refusing to see correctly. Or then could it be at all possible that the allegedly false assumption or assumptions that your opponents here hold would be something you could slowly and logically help us come to percieve the ill logic of, after which we'd all then be able to work together, perhaps finding ways for us to work around whatever is the problematic issue here? Or, perhaps, on the other hand, is it at all possible that there might be some assumption or assumptions that you hold which in reality are viewpoints that for practical purposes are not held by an overwhelming proportion of WPdians or perhaps even is in the minority? Please repond thoughtfully. Thanks, kind madam/sir. ↜Just me, here, now … 14:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you are confused, since in the context of Cat's comments, I was referring specifically to Internet killer. And, I did not "create" this page. I merely split it out into a standalone list. Of course, if you actually read the AfD you attempted to disrupt, you would have seen that. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused, Viriditas. You created THIS page on a very related, perhaps nearly identical topic, yet argue vehemently about there being -- not insufficient 2ndary sources, but absolutely no 2ndary sources that bolster the topic closely related to that of this article you've proposed: Very confusing. Please explain. If the issue is so black and white as your hyperbole would seem to indicate, step back and tell us what basic assuption we're refusing to see correctly. Or then could it be at all possible that the allegedly false assumption or assumptions that your opponents here hold would be something you could slowly and logically help us come to percieve the ill logic of, after which we'd all then be able to work together, perhaps finding ways for us to work around whatever is the problematic issue here? Or, perhaps, on the other hand, is it at all possible that there might be some assumption or assumptions that you hold which in reality are viewpoints that for practical purposes are not held by an overwhelming proportion of WPdians or perhaps even is in the minority? Please repond thoughtfully. Thanks, kind madam/sir. ↜Just me, here, now … 14:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there are no secondary sources on the topic. Please provide just one to prove me wrong. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would tend to favor remerging the material back into Craigslist. Шизомби (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thankfully, the AFD solved that problem and is against your proposal. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know that the matter is settled conclusively. What were your reasons for taking this section out of the Craigslist article and creating a separate article for it anyway? Шизомби (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- My reasons were discussed extensively on the AfD and found significant support. You appear to be acting in a tendentious manner, similarly to your arguments about keeping original research in related articles. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, doublechecking the AfD, the closing admin wrote "Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page." You are mischaracterizing what the source said. Шизомби (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- You either aren't understanding what has been written or you are being purposefully obtuse. The discussion about merging involves many things, including merging all of the articles you supported into this one. You seem to think that "discussion to merge" only means merging this article in Craigslist. It doesn't, and anyone reading the AfD can see that clearly. Again, your comments appear tendentious to me. I've removed your merge tag[1] because you seem to think that "discussion to merge" means merging to Craigslist, when in fact it means several different things. If you don't understand this, please review the AfD again. You seem to think that your POV takes precedent for some reason. It doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, you either aren't understanding what has been written or you are being purposefully obtuse. Your behavior is consistently without etiquette (I am guilty of this sometimes; you are pretty much as a rule) and goes against even your own supposed preference stated on your userpage for discussing matters on talk pages as opposed to edit wars. Шизомби (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- See User_talk:Schizombie#Re:_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FCraigslist_controversies_and_illegal_activities_by_users. Your reading is incorrect, as is your belief that "anyone" reading the AfD would agree with you. The closing admin indicated that a merger proposal and discussion are appropriate, what is inappropriate is simply doing the merge without proposing and discussing it, and the admin does not have an opinion as to whether a merge should be done. I would like to replace the merge proposal tags (this is not the same as saying the articles will be merged, only that it is proposed). If I do so, are you going to revert me, contrary to the advice of the closing admin? Шизомби (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- You either aren't understanding what has been written or you are being purposefully obtuse. The discussion about merging involves many things, including merging all of the articles you supported into this one. You seem to think that "discussion to merge" only means merging this article in Craigslist. It doesn't, and anyone reading the AfD can see that clearly. Again, your comments appear tendentious to me. I've removed your merge tag[1] because you seem to think that "discussion to merge" means merging to Craigslist, when in fact it means several different things. If you don't understand this, please review the AfD again. You seem to think that your POV takes precedent for some reason. It doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know that the matter is settled conclusively. What were your reasons for taking this section out of the Craigslist article and creating a separate article for it anyway? Шизомби (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thankfully, the AFD solved that problem and is against your proposal. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD
[edit]I had not realize that Viriditas had nominated the even better focused title Internet killer prior to his making this subsection of the Craigslist article as a stand alone; since I believe all these related titles should be reviewed by the community in tandem/de facto tandem, I've nominated this title at AfD as well (for the rationale stated at that venue). ↜Just me, here, now … 05:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I nominated Internet killer for deletion at 01:38, 25 April 2009[2] and I split out Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users at 11:50, 24 April,[3]. So, when you say that I nominated Internet killer before splitting the Craigslist article out, you are wrong, as the dates and diffs above clearly demonstrate. Could you do me a favor and try to verify your own claims before you actually start typing? Now, I see you've changed this claim again in the AfD. Please do try to be consistent when you make false claims. Internet killer has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with this article. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Internet killer has been renamed Internet homicide. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- And it is still, 100% original research. You have not answered a single request pertaining to the sources. As a result I have removed the merge tag. Please answer my request about the source material on that talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Internet killer has been renamed Internet homicide. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
POV
[edit]article is current a NPOV nightmare and cannot possibly be made to conform to WP:NPOV. Its just a big laundry list of negative press. notable entries should be merged and/or the list-article deleted altogether. Multixfer (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you misunderstand the NPOV policy. There is no POV problem, or at the very least, you have not described one. Tag removed until you do. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Im afraid I do not. Read this [4], and mainly this An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. This article is nothing but a collection of negative press. Multixfer (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that you misunderstand the NPOV policy. You created your account on January 6, 2009, and since that time, you have made only 73 edits to 39 unique pages.[5] For some strange reason, you only got around to creating your user and talk pages today.[6][7] If I assume good faith, then it appears that you are inexperienced and unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. But, a closer look at your edits shows that you are very familiar with how Wikipedia works, and you have some command over template usage, especially on talk pages.[8][9][10] In any case, assuming you are a new, inexperienced user, you were bold and tagged this article as POV without explaining the problem or how it can be fixed. I reverted, asking for an explanation. At that point, per WP:BRD, you are supposed to discuss the issue, not force the tag back into the article. You added the tag back in, and on talk, you quoted one sentence out of context from WP:UNDUE. You neglected to notice that this is a list/timeline whose scope is the controversies and illegal activities by users on Craigslist. These list entries are supported by reliable sources representing a majority viewpoint. As a list, the entries are within the scope and do not lend undue weight to any aspect, but illustrate the timeline of so-called controversies connected to Craigslist. If there was a reason to add a POV tag to this list, you would have provided one, but you haven't. Instead you say this is a "collection of negative press", which is your opinion, and does not serve to point me in the direction of any POV problem. For that reason, I am removing the tag. Because the placement of the tag is disputed, it is up to the person adding the tag to provide a reasonable justification for its inclusion. This means two things need to happen before you add the tag back in: 1) Describe an actual POV issue 2) Explain how it can be fixed. Maintenance tags are not used as weapons, or to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. And, they are certainly not used as scarlet letters or to hold articles hostage. Maintenance tags are used in good faith to alert editors to a problem that needs to be addressed. This involves laying out the problem so that the responding editor(s) can meet the necessary criteria and remove the tag. You have not been able to do this because there is no POV issue. If there was, you could describe it. WP:UNDUE does not come into play here. And, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to add the tag. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- BRD is an essay and has no policy teeth. I am NOT a SPA and can't say I appreciate the sideways implication/association with these people you were apparently having trouble with and the associated Chilling Effect these unbacked implications create. I have edited Wikipedia productively for several years as an IP, and only recently created an account. I never said I didn't like it and I have described the POV issue, which is that the ENTIRE ARTICLE is negative. I don't feel that the sentence from UNDUE was quoted out of context and "minority viewpoint" is just one element of UNDUE. However, I don't care enough about this to try to knock down walls with my head so do whatever you like. I will move on to improving other areas of Wikipedia. Multixfer (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- BRD is one particular application of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL, both policies. Wikilawyering over it isn't helpful. You have not described the POV issue that you see, other than to say that this article is "negative". That is your opinion, not a POV issue. How can I address your criticism? Unless you provide me with a set of criteria, what purpose does your tag serve? Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- BRD is an essay and has no policy teeth. I am NOT a SPA and can't say I appreciate the sideways implication/association with these people you were apparently having trouble with and the associated Chilling Effect these unbacked implications create. I have edited Wikipedia productively for several years as an IP, and only recently created an account. I never said I didn't like it and I have described the POV issue, which is that the ENTIRE ARTICLE is negative. I don't feel that the sentence from UNDUE was quoted out of context and "minority viewpoint" is just one element of UNDUE. However, I don't care enough about this to try to knock down walls with my head so do whatever you like. I will move on to improving other areas of Wikipedia. Multixfer (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that you misunderstand the NPOV policy. You created your account on January 6, 2009, and since that time, you have made only 73 edits to 39 unique pages.[5] For some strange reason, you only got around to creating your user and talk pages today.[6][7] If I assume good faith, then it appears that you are inexperienced and unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. But, a closer look at your edits shows that you are very familiar with how Wikipedia works, and you have some command over template usage, especially on talk pages.[8][9][10] In any case, assuming you are a new, inexperienced user, you were bold and tagged this article as POV without explaining the problem or how it can be fixed. I reverted, asking for an explanation. At that point, per WP:BRD, you are supposed to discuss the issue, not force the tag back into the article. You added the tag back in, and on talk, you quoted one sentence out of context from WP:UNDUE. You neglected to notice that this is a list/timeline whose scope is the controversies and illegal activities by users on Craigslist. These list entries are supported by reliable sources representing a majority viewpoint. As a list, the entries are within the scope and do not lend undue weight to any aspect, but illustrate the timeline of so-called controversies connected to Craigslist. If there was a reason to add a POV tag to this list, you would have provided one, but you haven't. Instead you say this is a "collection of negative press", which is your opinion, and does not serve to point me in the direction of any POV problem. For that reason, I am removing the tag. Because the placement of the tag is disputed, it is up to the person adding the tag to provide a reasonable justification for its inclusion. This means two things need to happen before you add the tag back in: 1) Describe an actual POV issue 2) Explain how it can be fixed. Maintenance tags are not used as weapons, or to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. And, they are certainly not used as scarlet letters or to hold articles hostage. Maintenance tags are used in good faith to alert editors to a problem that needs to be addressed. This involves laying out the problem so that the responding editor(s) can meet the necessary criteria and remove the tag. You have not been able to do this because there is no POV issue. If there was, you could describe it. WP:UNDUE does not come into play here. And, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to add the tag. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Im afraid I do not. Read this [4], and mainly this An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. This article is nothing but a collection of negative press. Multixfer (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Craigslist Killer redirect discussion notification
[edit]Discussion is going on at Talk: Craigslist Killer regarding making it a disambiguation page (originally set up as [11], but then the text was reworked on talk page) rather than its redirect to here, if anyone wishes to comment. Tvoz/talk 19:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)