Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Adult-child sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Canvas warrior on adult-child sex

TlatoSMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is engaged in a blatant canvassing campaign, check his contribs, an overthrown DRV on the basis of a canvasser has no legitimacy, perhaps some admin would care to take action. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone else posted this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvass violation here by User:TlatosMD - review? and someone else reverted them. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To further clarify, the canvassing was reverted, not the notice. The user (TlatoSMD) was indeed warned for violations of WP:CANVASS. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To which another admin commented that both reverting and the warning were "a little unusual" and "actually not recommended per the policy page". --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If the article is restored further action will be needed re this canvassing while any further decisions re the page would have to take into account this canvassing, which has only come from one side iont hat debate and arguably would make claims of validity of the article by that side not relevant. generally canvassing of the type Tlato did is shooting oneself in the foot. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Messing with my posts

Somebody moved one of my posts around on the main page thereby disconnecting it from the post it was responding to. According to [1], it was obviously The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Avruchtalk 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict, sometimes stuff gets shifted around accidentally. Don't go looking for problems where there are none; the guy's voting the same way you are, so he's not trying to undermine you. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I said sorry.[2]--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Let me tell you Fat Man, you're one of the most civil people wherever I've seen you, even with with these topics, thank you for that. --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. I do my best to be nice.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VigilancePrime details

I originally "voted" to delete. Rather, I voted to keep and later changed my vote. That chain of events led to a block for "aggressive behavior". That aggressive behavior was perhaps over-the-top, but it largely (almost exclusively) consisted of pointing out personal attacks, harrassment, and what could be construed as threats against myself and others involved in the debate. After all these things happened I was moved to change my vote to delete (much as in the Good Old Days people would confess to anything under torture).
The only reason I changed my vote was because I was trying to extricate myself from these discussions and articles entirely. I had hoped that perhaps changing to be on the side of the three most prolific editors (or deleters, as the case may be), I may be left in peace. Not so.
Ultimately, though, the deletion was based, as far as I can tell, on the vehemence of the article's three main detractors. Here is why the article should stay, based on policy:
  • WP:Notability - This article, at it's height, had 15 references for the phrase itself, including USA Today and The Washington Post and at least a couple scientific journals. The entire point of the page was to show the historical and a neutral viewpoint of the "phenomenon" of ACS. That this has been in a very wide array in this exact term shows notability. The case for Child Sexual Abuse had once been stated as "it is a commonly-used term" (from one of the ACS page's primary detractors). The same, though, can be said of this article.
  • WP:Reliable sources - As illustrated above, the article included references of the term's use and even definition/usage from USA Today and The Washington Post. I don't think anyone here would really try to argue that these, and scientific journals, are not reliable sources.
  • WP:Neutral point of view - The article always had issues, but those issues swung like a pendulum. Most of the time, the NPOV was in accusations, talk page stuff, and removel or adding of content. The biggest contention was that the whole article was NPOV because it was titled ACS. In fact, one of the Big Three editors once stated that the article is inherently NPOV because it was titled that way and that it was "on the wrong side of the issue". That statement illustrated exactly why the article was necessary and the blatant POV of the editors. At its best, the article had a section on Abusive ACS, non-abusive ACS (think old teen and young adult), and ACS within marriage. It also had a modern-day section and a historical section. It even had anthropological sections. It linked to CSA, Age of consent, Child marriage, and many other pages to provide an exceptionally balanced viewpoint. In fact, it was one of the most-referenced (if not best-referenced, granted) articles and extremely neutral in its language (far more than most any other PAW article).
  • WP:Other stuff exists - That CSA exists really is more POV than for ACS to exist. CSA is a part (the most major part in modern times, yes) of ACS. There are articles on Child sexual abuse, Child marriage, Age of consent (multiple pages!), and many others that deal with only a fraction of ACS issues. The ACS article was larger in scope, more inclusive in content, and more referenced overall than all of these.
  • WP:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument - For the most part, the discussions consisted of "per WP:xxxx" but gave little actual content for justification, as I have above.
  • WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! - This was the most used method, by both sides, on these discussions.
  • WP:Steamroll minority opinions - Lastly, this is the one "policy" that was used most by the deletion camp (primarily the Big Three). The edit histories of the article, though through good faith we may try to believe it was not an intentional, coordinated process, show a long series of incremental deletions. It would be like a near-blanking of a page, but instead of through a single edit, through tens of edits. This contributed to a lot of the aggression and antagonization of editors trying hard to improve the article instead of simply deleting the article one piece at a time.
VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) (originally: 06:50, 23 January 2008)

[edit] My rationale for closing the AFD as "delete"

I know that the community has been asking for my closing rationale; here is what went into it.

  • Sheer numbers - First of all, we need to accept the fact that AFD has very votelike tendencies. There was a majority to delete, especially when SPAs were discounted.
  • WP:NPOV - The NPOV policy is a pillar of the Wikipedia community; this article clearly violated that pillar. It was also an obvious POV fork, as nothing in the article was unwritten elsewhere.
  • WP:IAR - I do think it was best for the encyclopedia to delete the article. If my deletion is overturned, then the article will be back at AFD within 6 months, creating more drama etc. Wikipedia articles are not the place to express your views of what is right and wrong.

Hopefully this helps people in 'getting into my head' in this AFD. Regards, Keilana|Parlez ici 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally explaining your rationale. Just out of curiosity, if "nothing in the article was unwritten elsewhere" then how is it a fork? It would seem, from an outsiders point of view, that information found elsewhere might be redundant, but how can duplicated material represent a fork?
As a side note, I am greatly disturbed by you comments that "If my deletion is overturned, then the article will be back at AFD within 6 months, creating more drama etc. Wikipedia articles are not the place to express your views of what is right and wrong." which seems to say "we should delete this just so we don't have to deal with it anymore, policy be damned". I won't touch on the lack of citation as to POV within the AFD or here, as that has been adequately covered in the Delete Review, and ignored just as adequately. Pharmboy (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I take the comment "..nothing in the article was unwritten elsewhere", to mean that it is a Content fork. Which it clearly is. It is also a POV Fork, because it does seem to try and present a point of view. Dreadstar † 09:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
POV forks represent a different point of view, which has been claimed but no one has presented a single sentence to back up the claim. Summarizing other articles within another article is standard fare at Wikipedia. Not only is it acceptable, it is desirable. It isn't a 'content fork' if it is summarizing the contents of another, linked article. It is only offering perspective. I'm not a fan of the subject matter, but I can look past my own point of view long enough to recognize that the subject matter is valid and it is entirely possible to present the facts in a way that is neutral. What I am seeing is "OMG, think of the children" type arguments, and frankly, I am tired of dancing around that issue. It is painfully obvious that a number in the delete camp ARE wanting a delete because they are concerned the article could be changed to something against their own point of view. I could go on but frankly it would be wasting my time as so many simply want it deleted regardless of policy or reason. I should have gone into the pitchfork and torch business, I suppose. Pharmboy (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, even if an AfD may seem like a vote to some, it is definitely not a poll-style vote. What's the point then saying, at the very top, that this is a place for discussing, and not simply stating a vote on, the legitimacy of having an article about adult-child sex on Wikipedia? Besides, even if going by votes, there was no consensus to delete. Then, if only legitimate thought-out commentary is counted, the vote is, at best, a split decision. Also, could someone please direct me to the SPAs that some editors keep referring to? Next, how did this article violate the NPOV pillar of Wikipedia? I would contend that no solid argument was presented to defend this allegation. As for the most popular reason to delete – which was blindly reiterated by so many - that this is a POV fork, please consider the information that applies to the historical take on adult-child, the discussion of how this phenomenon has been viewed by non-Western groups, and the description of such sexual activity between non-human mammals, among other topics unique to this article. Also, what about the arguments presented in recognized scholarly sources that run in opposition to the mainstream opinion - are we to discount these points completely? If NPOV and weight of minority viewpoints is in question, editors are free to propose constructive changes to the article. But that is no reason to simply pulverize a legitimate detailed (albeit somewhat less in the latest form, due to repeated unjustified removal of information) article. Furthermore, there's so much more than could go into this piece, only if editors would actually try to work to improve the article, instead of consistently attempting to bury it. If anything, some previous versions, as well a few drafts created by individual editors in user space, show us that there is a great deal of information that can still be incorporated or reincorporated into this article. Finally, just because the topic is controversial and distasteful for some doesn't change its real existence and notability. If proper sources are provided and opinions are credited to persons that hold them, there's nothing wrong or inappropriate with Wikipedia discussing adult-child sex. Stating that some people will not like the article and will try once again to delete it does not present a strong rationale for deleting a worthwhile article that editors have worked hard to develop into a quality encyclopedia product. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL. Homologeo wrote: "the most popular reason to delete – which was blindly reiterated by so many - that this is a POV fork" -- "blindly reiterated" is uncivil to every editor who reviewed the article and found it to be a POV fork. A well-considered comment does not require a long list of arguments to prove its validity. The article was a POV fork; could it be that's why "so many" wrote that it was a... POV fork?
POV forks are contrary to NPOV core-policy. And "so many" was enough to show consensus. That's why the article was deleted, and rightly so. Well done by Keilana. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if editors choose to almost literally copy-paste one phrase or sentence reasons on an AfD, I'm not sure what else to call it but "blind reiteration." Nothing uncivil in this observation, especially since I'm not attacking any editors themselves. As for proclaiming something a POV fork without providing a rationale for such an assertion, how can an AfD be a productive venue for discussion, if editors don't even bother to justify their positions? Repetition does not make something more true or make it carry more weight. What I wonder is why, if so many editors were convinced this was a POV fork, didn't they provide solid reasons for their viewpoint? If this was so "evident," this should have been an easy task for them. On a similar note, the assertion that this was an POV fork was countered by several detailed elucidations to the contrary, which were barely, if at all, countered by the editors in support of deleting the article. I personally explained why this was not a POV fork, and very little has been said to counter the reasons I provided. ~ Homologeo (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As was stated in the DRV, WP:AFD singles out POV as not a very strong reason for deletion. So POV as deletion reason arguments are moot. Related, the consensus was clearly no consensus. Further, and quite frankly, providing a rationale now is also moot. This is one case when "better late than never" isn't sufficient. Having closed an AfD without any reasoning, and then taking a couple of days to come up with one and saying "this is why I did it", only further gives strength to overturning the deletion because, well, frankly, that's not how things are done on Wikipedia. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Allstarecho, there is a clear difference between a "POV article," and a POV Fork - the latter being a solid reason for deletion. And I totally agree with Mangojuice below, really obnoxious comment. Dreadstar † 09:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the difference. POV is POV. And as far as your and Mango's own POV that my comment is "obnoxious", save it for someone that cares. My opinion is just as valid as yours, his/hers and anyone elses. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 09:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference between a POV fork and an unbalanced article is that a POV fork covers a topic already covered elsewhere, and exists so that the viewpoints can be presented in a different balance. For instance, whether they like it or not, creationists and those who believe in evolution have to work together on Evolution to present the controvery in a balanced way. The creationists, say, cannot make an article Evolution (theory) to talk about Evolution but present the points of view the way they prefer. This is inherently harmful because only the neutral point of view is acceptable, we cannot have two articles discussing the same topic from different points of view. Even if both articles were brought into balance, it would still not be a good situation because then we'd have two articles on the same subject, and moreover, balance is basically unachievable unless the editors are all forced to work together. Mangojuicetalk 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if we follow your logic, why do we have the "Creationism" article? And, in this case, "Creationism" is the topic that deals with a more narrow (in some respects) topic than "Evolution." As for the dispute in progress, "Child sexual abuse" is the article that only deals with one particular take on adult-child sex. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to answer your first question; and "article that only deals with one particular take" is part of why this is a WP:POVFORK. Dreadstar † 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
So, do you then agree that "Child sexual abuse" is a POV fork of "Adult-child sex"? Even I would not start advocating merging these two together, but such an observation would be closer to the real state of things than claiming that it's the other way around. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As for your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think it's completely legitimate for me to respond to a comment by Mangojuice where that user implies that the topic of Creationism is somehow less deserving of an article than Evolution. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, I did no such thing and I really resent that implication. Read my comment again. I was saying that creationists are not entitled to have one article about Evolution with a different title (say, Evolution (theory)) in which their POV or their arguments are presented more than in the main Evolution article. Obviously, Creationism is a legitimate topic. It's entirely different to have an article about a viewpoint when other viewpoints exist. Mangojuicetalk 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that was not your implication, then we're back to the very simply question of what constitutes "adult-child sex." While you assert that the ACS article deals exclusively or primarily with a fringe take on "child sexual abuse," I maintain that it deals with a much broader topic than simply CSA. No one is denying that ACS is viewed as CSA in the contemporary setting. The greatest point of disagreement is whether or not ACS indeed covers a greater range of subjects than CSA. ~ Homologeo (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Mango, regarding your example, I'd actually argue that those coming from the secular and scientific school of thought would have rather endorsed the article we were building than those that argue from fundamentalist religion and morality (the result of the latter two being ignorance, ethnocentric moral absolutism, and hence the article we currently call Child Sexual Abuse built upon quack science is pretty much an equivalent of a Creationist website). I could give you a long lecture and list of references here, including the whole origins, history, development, principles, and axioms of science and philosophy which are ignored, defied, and violated by that latter article, but this is neither the time nor the place. Let me suffice this ailment is a pretty typical, symptomatic reflex within our cultural domain towards sexual deviance. --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: If it's not valid to say other stuff exists, then how valid is it to say that other stuff doesn't exist on Wikipedia? This specifically relates to those many arguments trying to equal all instances and forms of Adult-child sex with things inherently harmful and unpleasant for all people involved ("we don't have articles on unconsensual sex, we have rape", etc.), an assumption conflicting with a large deal of actually empirical scientific research. --TlatoSMD (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, please. Dreadstar † 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Exactly. Hence, "this is neither the time nor the place." --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a really obnoxious comment. Keilana was responsive and has explained her decision, and WP:AGF -- I'm sure those were the reasons Keilana closed the debate, not reasons concocted afterwards as you seem to imply. Furthermore, Keilana was not even given the courtesy of discussion before this DRV was started. Keilana was offline while most of this was happening. Wikipedians are allowed to have a life. Mangojuicetalk 06:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A life we have indeed but when someone takes the time to close an AfD, they should also take the time to explain why. Period. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Add to that the fact that she'd only been an admin for 10 days before closing one of the most controversial AfDs on Wikipedia at least in months, with the only reason(s) given for delete in the AfD considered even by a number of admins to be very weak. Add to that the fact that she obviously had enough time to blank, within minutes every time, a large number of requests to her talkpage for anything resembling a rationale or explanation, overwriting them with "FNORD!" which one might translate as "Whatever!" I'm afraid all of that gives rise to concerns she wasn't taking the AfD, nor her own decision, nor the editors asking her to fulfill her obligation for any rationale at all very serious. --TlatoSMD (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
She's been an admin for a long time. You'll note her RfA was a reconfirmation RfA, based on a username change. Avruchtalk 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh? TlatoSMD wrote: "she obviously had enough time to blank, within minutes every time, a large number of requests to her talkpage for anything resembling a rationale or explanation, overwriting them with "FNORD!"" --
---yet, on reviewing her talk page, there is only one deletion of a question, and it was one that included uncivil comments, and was posted by a newly-minted one-day-old WP:SPA that posted only on the AfD. It's simply untrue that Keilana removed a "large number of requests"; it would be a good idea for TlatoSMD to strike through that part of his comment. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Note how she's moved everything into Archive 3 prior to the one request she left on her talkpage, thereby losing the complete history. Also note several complaints and concerns on the main page here relating to her repeatedly blanking requests for a rationale. I call these coincidences quite odd. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I forgot there's a history for the main talkpage. She obviously blanked six posts relating to her closure of this AfD, one of them being herself thanking User:MBisanz for providing her with a rationale after she'd made the closure and had deleted the article. I can't see any incivility in any request. All other reasons for concerns remain of course. Perhaps also of note: Pretty much at the same time as she made her controversial closure, she received a large barnstar "for reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia". --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it really a "large barnstar"? To me, it looks like a regular size one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, now the closing admin has explained, so focus on the DRV please. Dreadstar † 09:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I meant by the barnstar joke, but you said it better. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early closure

I've undone User:Krimpet's early closure. DRV debates are normally closed after 5 days; while some can certainly be closed sooner due to snow consensus, this is not the case, as the verdict was "a complete lack of consensus" for either solution. And, as User:Krimpet voiced "delete" in the AfD in question, I don't think User:Krimpet is in the best position to close this DRV as an endorsement of the deletion result. Also, I'd like to recommend that administrators who have voted keep/delete in the related AfD steer clear of closing this DRV discussion and let an uninvolved administrator close it. Thanks and best regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--a disinterested party should close this discussion. Krimpet (who recently opined "just nuke it with extreme prejudice") seems to have strong feelings about whether or not this article should remain deleted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
While I doubt it will effect the outcome, it should be closed by an uninvolved person to avoid the appearance of bias. I also see no reason no to wait it out the full 5 days. (1 == 2)Until 15:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of bias is irrelevant, this isn't a court of law. The question here is not the same as the question at AfD, despite the attempts of many to make it the same debate. AfD deals with the substance of the article, DRV with the process of the closure of the AfD. If you can't trust admins to weigh separately questions of substance and process in different settings, that is pretty unfortunate. Avruchtalk 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the appearance of bias is very relevant. If the community thinks a decision was made with bias then it damages the communities respect for the decision. As for our trust in admins, it is common practice that the closer not be involved in the debate. (1 == 2)Until 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If the article is restored based on the poor actions of one admin the article will have no real consensus to exist and this will create huge problems about how to go forward in that article space. Therefore I agree that we should wait 5 days and have an admin with experience who has remained completel;y uninvolved till now (eg not PeaceNT). Thanks, SqueakBox 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, the closer should not be involved in the debate. This is common practice and is a concession to those who believe the principle of the appearance of bias applies to Wikipedia, when it really should not. However, there is no custom that a closing admin should not have been involved in a peripheral debate about a different issue. Avruchtalk 16:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well someone who hasn't edited the article, the afd or the drv for adult-child sex and is considered unbiased by both sides. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)