Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Contents

[edit] SPAs

I am alarmed at the number of SPAs that are popping up in this deletion discussion. I am concerned not only by their effect on the discussion but by their uncanny similarity to one another. Does anyone else consider this a problem worth further investigation? --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here they are, for the record:

I'd also point out that the nominator has contributed 75 edits to Wikipedia (excluding userspace), and 41 of them (55%) have been to this AfD (or the article in question):

I'm concerned that when you remove the (redundant) rationales of these four SPAs (who I suspect, although assume not, to be some type of puppets), the discussion looks very different, particularly in the makeup and substance of the delete rationales. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myrzakulov_equations" Categories:

  • It is interesting compare the comments of above mentioned users with the comments some russian users which they did in the first AfD discussion of my article (see please Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations). Also these english comments absolutely same with the logic and contents of comments (in russian) which were in Russian.Wiki.(see please [[2]] and [[3]]). Here I would like to present just one and short quotation from their comments " ... Осталось теперь на англвики добить. --RedAndr 15:26, 24 января 2008 (UTC)" main contents of which can be from russian to english translated approximately as " ... our next task is kill (delete) english version of the article" that is my article Myrzakulov equations. Also both of these two russian users actively participated in the previous AfD discussions directly and in the second AfD discussion anonymously and using (by) associated users. Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Now that is inappropriate. Users from one Wiki are not welcome to flood another in order to influence matters in what is a more-or-less independent project. This kind of tendentious, deliberate, motivated stuff might fly on ru.wiki, but it doesn't here. This certainly explains the fact that so many users have popped up with virtually (or literally) no prior history on en.wiki to vote in uncanny unison to delete this article. I would, at this point, consider this AfD to be spoiled, procedurally, due to the interference of these SPAs, although if one (properly) disregards their contributions, there is a much more productive AfD discussion buried somewhere in here. If I had the time, I'd file an SSP case against all of the editors with little or no prior history on en.wiki who have this otherwise singular opinion - I strongly suspect an abuse of this process going on here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of the highly similar editing patterns of these SPAs, I have filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R physicist. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh dear, should I be afraid of being called anti-Russian now? That would be a first. Actually, most of the "votes" on Russian wikipedia were for "Keep, but improve". I also doubt that these SPAs (calling a spade a spade) will turn out to live in Russia. Meatpuppetry seems far more likely than sockpuppetry. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    I wouldn't worry, and it isn't entirely relevant whether these users came from ru.wiki. I suspect meatpuppetry as well (see my comments at the SSP case - your comments are welcome there) because they all claim to work in the same sort of research area, all claim to have similar levels of expertise, and all voice the same opinions. Sounds like some co-workers are all upset about the same thing, and are hashing it out here to varying degrees. Given their level of technical knowledge, I will be sad if this case is inconclusive due to the use of proxies or other obfuscation methods. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Ngn (89.218.75.26 89.218.78.249 89.218.75.26 89.218.76.146 92.46.70.181 89.218.68.182 89.218.78.59 92.46.69.25 92.46.69.209 89.218.68.194 89.218.75.34 89.218.76.21 89.218.75.34 89.218.75.34 89.218.78.218 89.218.75.101 212.154.189.114 89.218.75.222 89.218.75.157, as well as the one from 92.46.72.14) - creator of the article, a single purpose account. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I'm the sole creator of the article. To edit and to communication I used and continue use just one computer for long time (Generally I use this computer around 6-8 months). Really I don't know why here arises many IP addresses for me. This is question for Kaztelecom but not for me. May be it is related with the fact that I use a telephone line for internet access? I don't know. For any case it is not my problem. Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostlyharmless, do not insert your comment in the middle of mine. Very poor form. You're also listing a number of IPs that are not being used in this AfD and are not committing the disruptive behavior in question. What is your point?? That a single editor, who freely admits to being an SPA and the article creator, who is not using other SPAs, sock/meatpuppets, etc to advance his position, who is not writing long diatribes against "thought policy" on "wackopedia" .. this is someone you want to toss in with the group of disruptive "delete" SPA/puppets? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for putting my comment in the middle of yours. For some reason I thought that R's name was a signature not a link... Anyhow, I merely wanted to point out for balance that SPAs had created and edited the article, which I think is actually more important than the question of who's editing here. I also felt the need to say that Ngn is most definitely acting in that way, and canvassing relentlessly. Check out 92's contributions.
I'd also like to say that I don't endorse R_Physicist (and possible puppets) behaviour in any way, which I think has done nothing to enhance this debate (which is nevertheless worthwhile). I hope that non-inflammatory comments prevail. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, Mostlyharmless. As the sole creator of the article I legally asked some users to keep the article (and improve its english). Reason: there were so much (how soft speak?) "nonconstructive comments" in the first, second AfD discussions (and in RuWiki) from which the article needs some defence. In particular I also asked you about it, but you answered to my request as "Go away ... " (see please[[4]]). You (and some others) "forgotten" that these equations are named not "Ngn equations". And in this sense my article can not be considered (on definition) as my self-promotion or self-advertisement (It is elementary!). But really speaking I not asked and not ask anybody keep the article by all possible means. As the sole author I inform you that the article needs in some improvements in contents, in form and in english. I will edit and try to improve it. Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved here from discussion page

This rant is very inappropriate. I have very little to say other than that. Since I've been more involved in this AfD than others, I won't delete this entirely, but I seriously hope someone outside might delete this inappropriate rant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Please stop ranting here. No one has been abusive or intimidating. I recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, especially those I pointed you to above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The following thread was taken from the main discussion, responding to the same long post/rant above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Deleting your blatant ranting, personal attacks, and irrelevant commentary about Wikipedia is not vandalism. I have given up trying to remove it, since you continue to add it back in, and I've even given up good faith attempts to collapse it or move it to this discussion's talk page, because you apparently refuse to do anything to minimize the disruptive effects of something that, at this point, seems to have no motivation but disruption behind it. I am highly disappointed in your conduct, but given the bad-faith displayed in your nomination of this article and the actions of the SPAs here, I am not surprised. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have done no such thing. Please try to maintain some perspective on this issue, and once again, I'd implore you to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, especially WP:SOAP, WP:TALK, WP:AFD, WP:NPA, etc. The only thing I see on this page that is not "relatively civilized" is your "Wikipedia or Wackopedia" essay. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"We" refers to all of Wikipedia and all editors and contributors to Wikipedia. That includes you, because following these policies is mandatory. I suggest you read them, because they do apply to you. Please also note that pre-emptively pointing a finger at some group of Wikipedians out to silence you is not evidence that you are "right." --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC) R physicist, your contributions to this discussion are apalling. They are the only reason why I am not voting here. (I would have voted for deletion.) Your accusations to Cheeser1 of "repeated insults, bullying tactics, baseless accusations and irresponsible conduct" are a textbook example of projection bias. It is in your best interest to stop this now and wait at least 24 hours to allow yourself to cool down, before you make any further postings here. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have once again removed the long rant from the deletion discussion. It is not germane to the immediate question of whether or not to delete the article, and is highly inappropriate. Moving it to the talk page is very generous, considering what normally happens to such lengthy tirades about Wikipedia (Wackopedia, as it were), administrators, conspiracies, thought-police, etc. I strongly suggest that this matter be dropped entirely (God knows this entire thread should be deleted with prejudice), but I suggest even more strongly that the duplicate of this rant be left off the deletion discussion - inserting it there creates significantly more disruption and is totally unacceptable, regardless of whether the rant is acceptable. By disrupting the process, R Physicist, you are only making it harder for your nomination to result in a "delete" decision. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Degeneration

This AfD has degenerated utterly, attracted innumerable dubious contributions, some on each side, and incorporated a debate on the very nature of wikipedia's editorial structures... now, this isn't entirely unusual, but I suspect this will make life very difficult for the closing admin.

Is there anything that can be done to make this cleaner and easier for the closing admin? SamBC(talk) 13:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, despite facing some pretty obvious and inappropriate opposition, I moved the rant "Wikipeida or Wackopedia" (and related comments) here to the talk page. The disruptive user in question refused to allow the removal of his, uh, "contribution" to the discussion, so I collapsed it and left a note. If you would like, I would be happy to make similar changes to other lengthy and less relevant parts of the discussion. I think Hans summarized the disruptiveness that caused this discussion to degenerate quite aptly above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: I've gone ahead and done it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another wikipedia-criticism piece moved from the discussion

Proscience, take a less from the previous discussion here - this is not the place for such irrelevant commentary. In fact, it has no place on Wikipedia. Inserting it into this discussion is highly disruptive. I have moved it here as a poing of generosity, instead of deleting it out-of-hand, but I strongly suggest you drop this matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This kind of abuse - 'your comments "have no place here"' towards certain editors concerned about the scientific notability of the topic is wrong. Wikipedia must defer to scientists, and what they think is notable in science, rather than making our own uninformed judgements - and we do this by measuring the topics against standards, such as citations, in-depth secondary coverage in reliable scientific sources. To abuse another for suggesting this is to totally detrimental, and illustrative of the group-think that is struggling to prevail on Wikipedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you don't appreciate WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. I do, and given that multiple editors have expressed a great deal of concern regarding the disruptive nature of these long diatribes, I'd say your opinion is in quite a singular minority. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I also find quite humorous your characterizing my good-faith efforts to keep this discussion from spiraling out of control and filling with (duplicate!) essays titled "wikipedia or wackopedia" as "abuse." I have been, if anything, exceedingly generous in assuming good faith, prolonging my assumption that these users were not sock/meatpuppets, etc. Wikipedia is not a meritocracy or a place for self-purported experts (especially a slew of them who jump into to tendentiously push and shove in an AfD, as unestablished and nonathorative SPA accounts) to declare themselves the beacon of scientific rationality. Proscience began his piece above by stating I will not add further comments related solely to the article in question. How much more disruptive could one be than to post irrelevant musings on the failings of Wikipedia in the middle of an ongoing discussion? Constructive rants about Wikipedia belong in User (or perhaps WP) space. Unconstructive ones don't belong here at all. That is not controversial or disputed. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been asked outside WP for some assistance. I suggest that a discussion of the relative role of scientifically-trained and non scientific editors here is not altogether inappropriate to this topic, but that the language that has been used by many people here is, in fact, altogether inappropriate. Some of those engaging in it really should know better than to get so personally involved. Whatever the result of this AfD, I suggest we stick to normal process hereafter for the article, and I'd urge an amnesty on the manner of discussion. My opinion on the appropriate role of specialists here is well-known, as the topic has been widely discussed elsewhere in WP. We won't settle it here, and we don't need to settle it to deal with this particular article. DGG (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] and again...

I have, once again, moved one of your comments to the talk page. This is not "mischief-making" it's standard. Read WP:TALK. Familiarize yourself with our policies. I continue to be exceedingly generous - the above comment would normally be summarily deleted as a frivolous, soapboxing, personal attack. I suggest you disengage from this issue. Other users have contacted me and explained that you were a new Wikipedian, unfamiliar with how Wikipedia functions and perhaps a bit upset by the lack of scientific Grand Supreme Order available for you to use to smite articles. And now you're making yourself, and those people who interceded on your behalf, look absolutely foolish. Cool off, take a break, learn to exist on Wikipedia peacefully, and stop writing polemical or personal attack essays in the middle of a deletion discussion (or anywhere else). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From the author of the article

  • Dear users! It seems that some of you are forgotten me, sorry not me but my article. What are your purpose here? I recall that it is Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination) and please return to the topic.

If seriously please stop any discussing:

a) the editors
b) the author of the article
c) the author of these equations
d) and other users.

Also please stop:

any polemical or personal attacks.

Remarks:

i) around 3/4 comments are outside of the topic
ii) around 3/4 of the remaing 1/4 comments from the associated users some of them known for me from the first AfD diss and RuWiki diss which have common purpose - "Delete".
iii) remaining comments are constructive.

Suggestions to closing admin. Please delete comments which:

1) are outside of the topic
2) contain any polemical or personal attacks
3) are from associated users.

Finally I note that the above presented my algebra is of course approximate. Ngn 92.46.69.96 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Dear G.N. Nugmanova: In this, I completely agree with you. And I would like to reassure you - and only you, that there is no "Russian conspiracy" (or any other kind of conspiracy, that I know of) involved in this debate. You already asked me about my identity (which is available to anyone who looks up my "user" page) and I reassured you about this. You also said you would like to contact me by e-mail, and I replied to you twice, explaining how you could do this, but you have, so far, chosen not to. We disagree about the need to retain the article you have written, but there has been no uncivilized exchanges between us, and for this, I am grateful. I think, simply, that you have made a mistake in posting this article. I am willing to believe that it was done "in good faith", in part, because you wanted to honour your (former) supervisor, in part, I presume because you didn't want to see the article you wrote in 1994, and posted on the ArXiv in 1998, lost for "posterity". But I would like to suggest that the proper way to preserve it, if this is the case, is not by using it as the basis for a Wikipedia article, but by trying to submit it for publication in a refereed journal. This is the usual process in our profession, as I am sure you know. Gestures in honor of one's supervisor can be done in other ways, and if you contact me, via e-mail, I will be happy to suggest some of these to you.
I have posted a notice at the main site of this delete discussion, inviting you to summarize your views by tomorrow, as I plan also to do. I hope this discussion will end on a somewhat more cordial and civilized tone than has been introduced by some (a very few) others into this debate (all non-scientists, by the way). And I hope that you will accept, with suitable wisdom, the judgment of those of your colleagues who are the most knowledgeable in the subject of: spin systems, and integrable systems of nonlinear equations. That is the proper environment for such professional discussions to take place, not the pages of Wikipedia. R_Physicist (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. (to G.N. Nugmanova) if you would still like to discuss this further by e-mail, I will be quite happy to answer you. You have only, as I mentioned, to use the e-mail link at my "user" page, which is in the "toolbox". R_Physicist (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Note to R physicist and Ngn: "Ngn" is not a user name, and the email function is only displayed to users who are logged in and who have themselves provided an email address. Ngn would have to create an account before sending email to R physicist via the email web form. Ngn would also have to have an email address verified. (I believe the restrictions were introduced due to misuse of the form by spammers.) --Hans Adler (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If both parties are fine by this, they can send me e-mails which I will forward to both so they can get in touch with each other. My e-mail is sitting right on my user page for everyone to see, so it shouldn't be a problem. Let me know on my talk, or just by e-mail, if this works. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear SamBC. I respect your view. But in our non standart case I not agree with you. Please
a) not close my article as no consensus
b) not renominate it.

Reasons: I with my article were in 3 "World Wars". Please see my article wikihistory:

1. "First World War": for the first time I created it in RuWiki. There it deleted with the help of my two "friends".
2. "Second World War": second time I created same article in EnWiki. In this case there was more democratic audience. And I had some perspective. But in the end with the help of my "old friends" from RuWiki we had "no consensus".
3. "Third World War": One of users send us (I and my article) to 2nd nomunation. In this case just one moment is very nice: today I hope this War will finish.

So my "famous" article 3 times was in "World War". We tired and want take some rest. But now you want send us to "Fourth World War"? I'm afraid that the results of the next War will be same. Ngn 89.218.75.202 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This would be a good time…

… to go for a walk. There are two editors here who need it. Any suggestions where to go? How about Meanwood Valley Trail? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.