Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro: Difference between revisions

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC).

---

• Florentino floro (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

There is a long term dispute over the way that User:Florentino floro adds content to wikipedia. He has a pattern of adding non-notable news and non-neutral content to articles. I have written on his talk page numerous time in good faith (as have many other editors), but he stubbornly refuses to change his behavior, instead denigrating me for suggesting that he change. He also has an agenda that has come to light: he is self-aggrandizing, and has carried a vendetta against particular Filipino figures into wikipedia in his choice of subjects to edit and the type of content he adds. He has been adopted twice through Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, and I have tried to get his adopters to engage with these issues with limited success. Each adopter built a page dedicated to concerns about floro, [1] and [2] but they seem to have backfired by hiding the dispute and the issues from the wikipedia community at large. One difficulty here is that the edits form a pattern, but they are spread through multiple articles. Other editors often don't realize the depth of the issue looking at only one or two questionable edits. maxsch (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cause of concern

1. A general pattern of adding non-notable news
   1. some applicable diffs: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
2. A fixation on specific Filipino figures and a pattern of exaggerating negative news about them.
   1. some applicable diffs: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (note: if you look at the news story, you will see that he significantly exaggerated the seriousness of the accident, and look at the talkpage note accompanying it [20]), [21], [22] goes with this[23] for context, and these for emphasis[24], [25]. It’s edits like this one [26] that led me to figure out that he was making biased edits.
3. Self aggrandizement and desire to leave a legacy. Particularly alarming are his claims of prophetic power and his insistence on adding proof of the truth of his alleged prophecies.
   1. some applicable diffs: [27], [28]
4. Responds to criticism with long off topic autobiographical rants, usually without addressing real issues.
   1. some applicable diffs: mostly see his talk page, here [29] and [30], but also in article talkpages where it clearly doesn't belong, [31], [32]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

1. WP:NPOV
2. wp:notable
3. wp:relevant
4. wp:blp

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

1. I would like to see user:Florentino floro stop adding news items indiscriminately to wikipedia. Though occasionally news is useful, too often he adds it to pages where it doesn't add to an understanding of the subject and ends up just being clutter.
2. I would also advise him (per npov) not to add any content to pages of anyone who was involved with his disbarment, or those of anyone against whom he has ever filed a lawsuit.
3. If his adopter is willing, I think it would make sense to have a period of time where Floro would only make 3 edits per day, and he would show them to his adopter before actually posting them. In this way he could get advice about what content he should add. I think the fewer edits restriction would force him to be more discerning. However, if Floro is unwilling to change his behavior and listen to criticism, he is a menace to wikipedia, and the only remaining option is that he be blocked. maxsch (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

1. TheCoffee (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Migs (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. While Mr. Schmelling has identified what he claims to be several problematic patterns in the edit history of Mr. Floro, I would be interested if he could also identify some positive aspects to Mr. Floro's contributions to Wikipedia? This would be helpful as it would show that this RFC was made in good faith. Algabal (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A. I'm a little confused by what you mean here. The RFC is, in fact, about these problematic patterns, or, if you prefer, allegedly problematic patterns. Is it necessary for me to congratulate Floro at the same time as I bring up issues with the content he adds? I'm not sure why you would think that my creating the RFC is not in good faith. It seems to me that it is obvious that my actions stem from a concern about the quality of content on wikipedia. If that is not clear, let me restate it: I am concerned about the net effect of User:Florentino floro's contributions on the quality of wikipedia. I have never said that he never adds useful content (he does occasionally add useful content); I have never accused him of acting in bad faith. What I think he needs is a little more education, and especially he needs to be open to that education. maxsch (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For background on this issue, and to show that I have been acting in good faith, this sequence of diffs should provide a narrative of my and Floro's history. Here is our first encounter [33], and then this is when I first became concerned about his editing [34]. Then he was adopted the first time [35], and I tried to talk to his adopter about what I saw as problematic tendencies,[36]. Here is an example where I tried positive reinforcement [37]. And then I tried very specifically to help him learn [38], [39] and [40]. maxsch (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed.  Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views

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.

Florentino Floro is a highly valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Alienating him would be a big mistake. The vast majority of the news information that Mr. Floro adds to articles is both important and relevant. Take, for example, the following edit which is very typical of his work: [41]. It's short, notable and well written, but this appears to be the sort of "pattern" that has annoyed Mr. Schmelling.

Mr. Floro's edits are always short, well-written and neatly backed up with nicely formatted citations and references. I see no problem whatsoever with his edit history after browsing through it and examining the differences. I have, furthermore, examined some of the edits that Mr. Schmelling thinks are problematic, and to be frank I think it is much ado about nothing. Most of them are on talk pages, anyway, and all appear to be non-disruptive and in good faith. The patterns he identifies are simply not there. I am disappointed that User:Maxschmelling would attempt to lodge this complaint against such a fine Wikipedia user. Algabal (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 15:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Personally there's nothing wrong with him, he's just a confused Wikipedian. Although, I got to say that he loves creating never-ending, irrelevant, cryptic, insignificant and again very very long statements, which are practically speeches or like court orders (which are also very long), which are both a waste of time in creating and reading. But if he's happy with it, and it makes Wikipedia better why block him? -- Felipe Aira 14:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well, what I'm saying is that it doesn't make wikipedia better, it makes wikipedia worse. Why would you say that he makes wikipedia better? I'm happy to have a discussion on that subject. maxsch (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's your imperative to show why it makes Wikipedia worse. IMO, he makes it better with his many additions, such as noting the deaths of important people, as I show above. Algabal (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty more arguments on the talk page as to why Floro makes Wikipedia worse; check the primer if you don't want to bother going through all of max's links above or my links in the talk page. Again, we never said all his edits are bad, we said many of them are. --Migs (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional view: Rkitko

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.

I'm not entirely uninvolved as I have spoken with Floro in the past about this, but I share some of the concerns of the editors who have opened this RfC. Floro appears slow to understand policy (not a problem in and of itself; patience is required) and he does note that he is relatively new to computers and Wikipedia (though I think he stretches the claim that he's a newbie quite a bit, after being here for over a year). Earlier, he had a problem identifying what constituted a copyright violation with articles like coconut healing oil, but through several rounds of discussion, the notion that copying and pasting websites into an article was a bad thing finally sunk in. I had hoped similar discussion would help with his recent and ongoing irrelevant "news" edits, but so far he remains adamant that his contributions are helpful and completely relevant. I agree with User:Maxschmelling and User:Cma that some of his contributions give undue weight to certain events. Further, many of his edits can be seen as simple trivia that has been added to the narrative as a current event, but will rarely have lasting significance. It is true that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore has more leniency on what is included, it is also true that Wikipedia is not for news reports. Some of Floro's more recent news edits have followed the pattern:

1. diff - While the quote is indeed very nice, I agree with Maxschmelling's assessment diff that this is one of many speeches and that the speech itself has not been proven to have any lasting notability and would have been eventually removed from the article as irrelevant fluff later if Maxschmelling had not removed it.
2. diff - Floro also doesn't seem to understand that while many events occur, not all are notable, such as this example, which clearly does not belong on the municipality's article.

I'm also concerned with Floro's assertion that this (the RfC, Maxschmelling, Cma) is all a conspiracy against him from other Filipino editors. He has even appealed for my help in battling them. I'm not sure exactly where this idea originated, but I can't locate any evidence that it is accurate.

Of course this is not all Floro's fault. He's suffered an ineffective first adopter, User:Ianlopez1115, and a relatively absent second adopter, User:Diligent Terrier. Still, there is no reason for Floro to continue adding these irrelevant news items after lengthy discussions with all involved. He refuses to acknowledge the irrelevance of some of his edits (many others are just fine) and perhaps is unable to determine which are notable and which should be left out. Maybe this is due to an incomplete guide or explanation given to him. I would suggest a block the next time a conflict of interest edit is uncovered, such as the pattern of edits seen in Miriam Defensor Santiago, and possible blocks for successive news items that violate WP:NOT#NEWS. Floro should be able to recognize which items are notable by now. Adding non-notable and irrelevant information to the encyclopedia reduces the quality of what we have achieved so far (admittedly, a struggle, but to do destroy the integrity of what has be achieved willingly is not acceptable).

I hope Floro takes the above advice into consideration and alters his behavior. I have pointed to relevant policies and guidelines. I would also ask that he use common sense in his approach to editing. Before each edit, ask, "Is this a significant piece of information that will improve the article or will it just clutter it up?" If the answer is "no, it's not significant" or "maybe, but not sure", then allow time to pass before proposing it be added to the article. Ask the opinion of others before editing to get a better feel for what is and is not considered good editing. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

Template

1)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.