Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. The preamble here is identical to the preamble in the category, and there is almost no other content. G4 demands only substantial identicality, not outright identicality. -Splash^talk 01:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totalitarian dictators

Idiosyncratic POV reproduction of the contents in the deleted Category:Totalitarian dictators The contents were a problem in the category namespace, and they are a problem too in the main namespace. 172 | Talk 23:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidently 172 does not like the term totalitarian dictator.

FYI Simon P nominated the category for deletion. In addition to myself, CalJW, Jiang, Haham hanuka, Wikiwizzy, Shanes, Tony Sidaway , Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, mikkalai, SqueakBox, Mirv, CdC, Nat Krause, Jdforrester, Ziggurat, Modster, RustyCale, Jobe6, Alai, Aldux, siafu, Sean Curtin, Zscout370, fvw, John Kenney, FayssalF, and Str1977 supported deletion. [1] Quit trying to make me the issue. I'm irrelevant as to whether or not the article totalitarian dictators gets deleted. 172 | Talk 10:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

he also does not like following the rules. The vote to delete Category:Totalitarian dictators had been closed without a consensus, so that category should still be around. 172 removed the notice of closing and then proceeded to solicit votes to support his position, after supporters of the category thought the voting was over. Consult with the admins on that deletion for the details of his behavior. This is an article, far more notable than many articles, and not only is it different than a category, there is different text than that which was voted down in the category. I had prepared this text for the category page, after there was no consensus for deletion of the page, and the voting had been closed, in order to improve the category so that it would answer 172s objections and do better should there be another attempt to delete the category. 172 of course, will deny that it addresses his objections, but that doesn't matter, many others will see that it takes the stings out of his assertions that this cannot be implimented in a NPOV manner. Instead of pressing for arbcom review of 172s behavior, and a restoration of the catagory due to the voting irregularies he fostered. I was just going to wait a month and create it again. In the mean time this is as legitimate as any article. Unfortunately, a lot of work by several editors was destroyed during the vote for catagory deletion process by 172s behavior, since he was busy deleting the category from all articles while the vote was still going on and had to be admonished. As far as I know there is no easy central place to recover those totalilitarian dictator candidates. In summary:

1. the original category should still be around and was only defeated due to irregularities by 172 after the voting had been closed without a consensus

   The criteria for deciding whether to close a debate on CfD is not set in stone. One editor did not see a consensus, and moved to close. I asked for more time, and reopened the debate, given that the trend was moving toward the delete side once a more clear explanation of why the category was inherently POV was made in the middle of the voting period. With more time, a consensus was established for deletion; and then an administrator eventually deleted the article without my involvement. All the attacks on me are just meant to distract everyone from the fact that there is a consensus against creating an article along the lines of "totalitarian dictators."172 | Talk 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

2. so that event is irrelevant to making this a candidate for speedy deletion, this article is notable in its own right
3. this article is different than a category
4. the text in this article is different than that in the category, at least at the time of the voting and irregularities, so its merits are different, and its relation to the previous irregular events has been broken
5. the changes in the text are intended to address 172s objections, not his satisfaction, but perhaps to the satisfaction of others

   My objections aren't so special. What about the objections of the dozens of other people who came out in favor of deleting the category? 172 | Talk 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

6. 172 should be banned from editing the article, since he cannot edit it good faith, he has already concluded that it cannot be made workable, so any edits are likely to be as disruptive as his other behavior has been

   Pot kettle. 172 | Talk 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

7. this is the seventh point, if there are any fewer than 7, beware, 172 may have deleted any he didn't like. Admins should check the history every time he edits. If they had known this before, the category would still be around.

   You are being really disingenuous. You have no evidence that I deleted any votes. That's because I did not delete any votes. Yet I don't expect you to apologize when you eventually find out that I did not tamper with the CfD vote in question, nor any vote ever for that matter. 172 | Talk 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I never said you deleted votes, but reopening a vote that people had seen closed is worse than deleting votes. So then you could run a campaign without opposition, like the one party systems. You never really opened the vote, that wasn't your right, you only had the power to disguise the fact that it had been closed. You then contacted a half dozen or more likely voters for your position, they voted the way you intended. And then the finally the vote had been open long enough for you, just three more days with no notice to those who in good faith thought the issue was over. You should shouldn't be trusted with editing powers, you have no sense of perspective. You couldn't wait another month to try again or let the editors of the category prove themselves to you. --Silverback 11:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

--Silverback 09:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You certainly implied it: beware, 172 may have deleted any he didn't like. Admins should check the history every time he edits. If they had known this before, the category would still be around. Shame on you for making baseless accusations without any evidence. Further, I did nothing improper in reopening the debate. Reopening the debate for more time was not a violation of the spirit of the process. You are correct in pointing out that more people came out in favor of deleting the category after reopening. However, in contrast to voting in a single party state, leaving more time for discussion also gave the authors of the category more time to state their case and persuade people to see things in a different light. The fact that this did not happen is a reflection of the consensus to delete a category that the vast majority of editors consider unworkable and inherently POV. 172 | Talk 11:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the spirit of the process. The reason a supermajority consensus is required for deletion is not to frustrate the majority, it is to protect the minority. You destroyed that spirit by immoral, irregular and abusive use of powers and to get your own selfish way, right away. Yes, you only used powers that anyone of us could've used. You seem to think that having a power gives you the right to use it. Even wiki editing powers are a trust to be used and not abused. The voting was closed, anyone of us could have reopened it according to your reasoning. You should think about how universalizable that type of behavior is.--Silverback 11:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again isn't going to make it correct. First, please review Wikipedia:Be bold. No one has any reason to get upset because I reopened a discussion for more feedback; after all, more intelligent feedback is always better than less feedback. Second, please review Wikipedia is not a democracy. According to the administrator who deleted the article, a consensus was established in favor of deletion. I did not make that determination. By this stage, protecting the minority is not an issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; so it cannot disregard encyclopedic standards in order to appease a small minority of users. 172 | Talk 12:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I implied that you might do it. After doing what you did, why not suspect that you could also delete votes? Just exactly how do you draw your lines of ethical behavior? You had wonderful ends in your view, and those justified the deceptive means that you used. --Silverback 12:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not deceive anyone. There was no need to check the page history to find out that I was the one who reopened the debate. I said so on multiple pages, and informed the administrator who had earlier closed the debate right away on his user talk page. By the way, I implied that you might do it is as weasely of a response as they come. With no evidence that I have ever deleted other people's comments, you had no business making the insinuation. That insinuation would be tantamount to (say) me saying that you might have wife whom you beat on the basis of not seeing any evidence falsifying the claim. 172 | Talk 12:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's attempt to make me out to be the bogyman is a diversion from the fact that there was a consensus to delete the category. Yes, I reopened the debate. This did nothing more than allow more time for more feedback and more perspective in order for a consensus to be reached. And a consensus was reached. SimonP nominated the category for deletion. Deletion was supported by CalJW, Jiang, Haham hanuka, Wikiwizzy, Shanes, Tony Sidaway , Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, mikkalai, SqueakBox, Mirv, CdC, Nat Krause, Jdforrester, Ziggurat, Modster, RustyCale, Jobe6, Alai, Aldux, siafu, Sean Curtin, Zscout370, fvw, John Kenney, FayssalF, Str1977, and me. For some reason or another, Silverback is attempting to vilify me and focus on my reasons for deleting the article. But this is nothing but a red herring to divert attention from the compelling reasons to delete the category brought up by dozens of other editors when a consensus was established. 172 | Talk 10:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that if this content has previously been deleted, this could be speedied. --CastAStone 23:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Previously deleted article is speedy candidate. Pavel Vozenilek 00:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure if it was a speedy candidate. It's not 100% from the content in the category. The "list of totalitarian dictators" in the article is new. Even with the modfifications, is it still a speedy candidate? 172 | Talk 00:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete --Rogerd 03:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and added the article to Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. Thanks for the feedback. 172 | Talk 07:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.