Wikipedia talk:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Irrelevent Comments
-
-
-
- Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't delete other users' comments. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
Katefan sees fit to staulk - I find the personal attack more closely related to another matter - so I've removed it to discussion,. If Katefan has a comment on the substance of the article - she is welcome to particpate. Benjamin Gatti
If you could, please show me how I have "staulked" you. Otherwise you may prefer to modify your remarks. Two in-common articles is hardly "stalking." I have a right to comment on a VfD just like everybody else. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my words, but I felt like it was necessary since the discussion was already on the subject of potential conflicts of interest. Also, I never made a personal attack against you -- I never said you WERE currying favor, or that I thought you were currying favor, or anything approaching it -- I said it could have that appearance, which is far from a personal attack. On the other hand, capriciously painting comments you dislike as personal attacks can be construed as itself a personal attack, though I won't press this issue. I will, however, insist on my comments being left intact -- a stance at least one other editor seems to feel proper. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
You have the right to comment on other pages without people impuning your motives without cause - and I think you should extend the same courtesy. Benjamin Gatti
- Did you extend me courtesy when you said I'm "stalking" you by participating in two of the same articles out of tens of thousands? How about when you called my pointing out something unflattering about you a "personal attack?" Or how about deleting my comments on a talk page three times? · Katefan0(scribble) 05:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Benjamin, this seems to be unduly hypocritical. You commented on the VfD "...both of whom failed to disclose that they are engaged in an arbcom petition against Ed Poor - that is that they clearly Oppose the policy. ... items are being voted for deletion by vested parties as a means of censoring ideas with which they take exception". i.e. you "disclosed" something about two editors, impugning their motives for the VfD and the vote. You can hardly then tell Katefan0 that you have "the right to comment on other pages without people 'impuning' your motives" and disclosing equally (ir)relevant information about you, as this was precisely what you did in the first place. — Asbestos | Talk 12:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Text move (Again)
Once Again Personal attacks are not a valid reason to delete a page. Whether or not one editor of several "could appear" to be harboring a bias (which way is disputed) is simply irrelevent to the question of whether or not the WikiSpace ought to include a particular entry. Benjamin Gatti
:::::Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. And in the interest of my own full disclosure, I am also involved in this particular mediated dispute, which is why I have not voted on this particular VFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Please don't delete other users' comments, Benjamin. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Moving for a third time
:::::Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. And in the interest of my own full disclosure, I am also involved in this particular mediated dispute, which is why I have not voted on this particular VFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Please don't delete other users' comments, Benjamin. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Yeah, I'm going to stick with my objection. According to WhatIsIllegitimateSpeech "any speech questioning the intellectual honesty and moral principles of any person is considered illegitimate." (And ought to be removed) The purpose of Wikis' is not to question people's motives, it is to discuss and question ideas. (Think of how easy it will be to present this complaint to Arbcom.) Benjamin Gatti
-
- I did nothing any worse or different than what you did by disclosing other peoples' conflicts of interest. After all, conflicts of interest must be disclosed, right? If you're trying to suggest that you're going to bring me before Arbcom for pointing out your own hypocrisy and concomitant whitewashing, all I can say is do what you feel you need to do, but please stop threatening me in the meantime. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Kate, you're not being threatened. I believe your comments directly impuned character. You could have expanded disclouse in an NPOV manner if you felt it was relevent - but you did not stop there - you wrote the conclusion as well - and that is where your comments cross the line. Why don't you revise the comment in a manner consistent with good policy and we'll move on - otherwise - I'm going to insist. As for Hypocrisy - show me where my comments cross the line. and see below Benjamin Gatti
- I did nothing any worse or different than what you did by disclosing other peoples' conflicts of interest. After all, conflicts of interest must be disclosed, right? If you're trying to suggest that you're going to bring me before Arbcom for pointing out your own hypocrisy and concomitant whitewashing, all I can say is do what you feel you need to do, but please stop threatening me in the meantime. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- ?!?!? Did you see my comment about hypocrisy above? And why do you need to keep copying Katefan0's text here? Is once not enough? — Asbestos | Talk 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Sorry perhaps I didn't - allow me then to respond. First - its a text move - not a delete - i can be accused of refactoring - but not of censoring. As to Hypocrisy - its very simple for complex minds, and very complex for simple ones. Katefan is dragging history from another page into this one like a one-note samba in order to accuse me of having alterior motives. - That is simply an inappropriate Ad Hominum attack. I on the other hand - did not impune the motives of the two editors - I demonstrated that they were involved On this very Issue and that they had failed to disclose their direct involvement as required by Policy. Benjamin Gatti
[edit] Fourth Time - Text Move - ad hominum
:::::Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. And in the interest of my own full disclosure, I am also involved in this particular mediated dispute, which is why I have not voted on this particular VFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Please don't delete other users' comments, Benjamin. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I continue to maintain that this comment is inappropriate because it impunes motives and violates the presumption of good faith - it makes people the argument rather than the ideas presented and it is sound policy to refactor. I have heard those who oppose the action. I reject their non-arguments as lame. I also contest that nothing in a VfD is disruptive within the proper meaning of the word. Benjamin Gatti
[edit] VFD on VFD
Would somebody like to explain why there is a VFD notice on a VFD page? Is someone doing dumb things to make a point? Should we just remove it? Otherwise I could see this going on for ever... DJ Clayworth 15:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a VfD on the VfD because the two editors who initiated the VfD(1) are both activily involved in the issue at hand and failed to disclose that fact. As a consequence the VfD is poisened fruit and should be deleted as a violation of Disclosure policy. Editors should not be rewarded for failing to follow policy by the advantage gained thereby for their person agendas. Benjamin Gatti
[edit] 3RR violation by Benjamin Gatti
There is a 3RR violation report about this article concerning Benjamin Gatti. It is currently open for comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Benjamin Gatti. violet/riga (t) 15:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The close
I initially discounted three keep votes. WizUp (talk • contribs) was too new and looks very trollish. hipocrite (talk • contribs) created the account ages ago but only made about 24 edits prior to July 18th. And Friday who for some reason I incorrectly counted as having made very few article edits (sorry Friday!) I've altered the closing summary to show the incorrect count and the correction. This error didn't come close to affecting the result. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm confused - don't take this as a personal attack, I'm honestly wondering - how is 22 delete votes and 12 keep votes a result of keep? jglc | t | c 13:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- It would be IMO more accurately described as a result of "no consensus" with the effect of "keep", but in the wake of recent disputes, Tony no longer phrases closes that way as i understand his comments. The standard for consensus to delete is rather high, some admins put it at 66% or 2:1 which would have required at least 24 delete votes for 12 keep votes -- Tony has said he normally insists on at least 75% (depending a bit on the strength of the arguments) which would require 36 or more delete votes to outweigh 12 keep votes. But it doesn't much matter since the vote on the policy clsoed at soemthign like 20 to 1 agaisnt, so thw policy has been labeled as "rejected" and the page is kept only as a record of the discussion. this seems quite reasonable to me. DES (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I guess, with the new tally of 12 keep, it makes a little more sense. Just wondering about policy. Thanks! jglc | t | c 14:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I think some closers, who go by 2/3 supermajority for rough consensus, would regard this as a close call that could go either way. For me it isn't even close. The arguments for keep weren't particularly weak, so even if it had got 70% (the lowest level at which I would consider a consensus), say 28 to delete and 12 to keep, I probably would not have called a delete.
- Incidentally this was the most protracted close process I have ever performed. I didn't watch the clock, but it must have taken around an hour to step through the edits and to check their provenance and the editing background of those editors I didn't already know. There was quite a lot of jiggery-pokery, with VfD tags being added and removed from this VfD notice with gay abandon (looks like a fun time was had by all). --Tony SidawayTalk 15:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- It would be IMO more accurately described as a result of "no consensus" with the effect of "keep", but in the wake of recent disputes, Tony no longer phrases closes that way as i understand his comments. The standard for consensus to delete is rather high, some admins put it at 66% or 2:1 which would have required at least 24 delete votes for 12 keep votes -- Tony has said he normally insists on at least 75% (depending a bit on the strength of the arguments) which would require 36 or more delete votes to outweigh 12 keep votes. But it doesn't much matter since the vote on the policy clsoed at soemthign like 20 to 1 agaisnt, so thw policy has been labeled as "rejected" and the page is kept only as a record of the discussion. this seems quite reasonable to me. DES (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
