- User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This deletion was a total mess. It was ostensibly removed both as a speedy deletion, and a snow closure of the Mfd, and was gone within a few hours of being begun.
It was not a G10 candiadate, it contained no slanderous or defamatory material, and the BLP material, while unsourced, was nothing more than what you can find right now in mainstream media. The title could, if massively assuming bad faith, be seen as an 'attack', yet that was easily fixable with a rename, such as Obama and the national socialism analogy.
The Mfd was SNOW closed based on nothing more than 'this will never be an article' to quote Spartaz. Really? sources suggest otherwise The nominator didn't even appear to have read the page, as he seemed to think, wrongly, that it was attacking Obama, when in fact if people read it, it was mostly an attack against unnamed American Conservatives, combining some recent political events with some essay type material.
This was not an unsaveable draft, and it was not as one person put it as, a 'Criticism of' article in all but name. There was adequate scope for improvement and sourcing, certainly until the end of the 7 day Mfd period.
The fast closure of this was nothing more than a total over-reaction to reading the title and jumping to conclusions, which is an assumption of bad faith, and an abuse of the principle that people are free to host drafts in their userspace for everybody to work on without being harassed and cowtowed.
It shouldn't even be at DRV, but the ANI discussion was being derailed and the real policy issue was being shunted here probably in hope it just went away, so here it is. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some background reading too. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as blatant attack page. G10 is not limited to the mainspace, nor is BLP. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a copy of the draft. If you think it's 'blatant', please quote any part of it that meets this over the top reaction, or per G10, quote any part of it that is libelous or defamatory or a blatant BLP violation. MickMacNee (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing so would itself be a BLP violation. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I have the draft, so you can give me a paragraph/line/word number if you feel you cannot repeat it here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy endorse: I will put this in big letters to get the point across: there was no possible way this article could ever be NPOV compliant. Thus, per BLP, speedy deletion was not only warranted, it was mandated. Sceptre (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You never even read the original content going by your initial comments, so how are your BIG LETTERS supposed to be any more convincing? And where is this idea coming from that this subject could never be NPOV? You simply can't say that without ever seeing a proposed article. It is not as if the proposed article was titled Obama is a Nazi, and if you are reading it thay way, then it is you who are not adhering to NPOV, not the article title. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:UNDUE. Even considering an article about a logical fallacy so old and idiotic you got made satirized when Hitler was still alive violates UNDUE. Sceptre (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea what most of that alludes to, but regarding UNDUE, it is not beyond the realms of impossibility that an Afd on any proposed article could result in a merge result. There is no law either that userspace drafts are articles, it may merely have been a proposed section of say, Political positions of Barack Obama. The way you are going on it is as if this article was just about to be posted to main space, FA'd, and plonked on the main page. When in reality it was draft content a few hours old. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And to make it absolutely clear incase you get the wrong idea from that post, that proposed merge would be to add to the article the noted analogy about how some opponents see his proposed health reforms, and not to have Wikipedia state/imply/allege in a violation of BLP or UNDUE that Obama's political position was that of national socialism. I would normally assume I wouldn't have to make such qualifications, but given the reactions so far, I'm not so sure now so I'm being sure to make myself clear. MickMacNee (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but AfD has a "keep" culture in which it's hard to get policy-violating material deleted once it hits mainspace. You know what? I'm going to move the goalposts: the "nazi" comparison in any context is so spurious, so idiotic, and so logically fallacious that any mention in an article would violate NPOV. There's a reason why it's an autoflagged word on the GameFAQs message boards: because, and I quote verbatim, "calling someone a "Nazi" shows that not only have you absolutely no grasp of history". Wikipedia does not, should not, and must not cater to such idiots. The only use for such a word in an encyclopedia is in discussing the ideology and adherents thereof. Sceptre (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, AfD has a delete culture, based on a/most afds closing as delete, and b/the frequently applied ability to continue nominating until something is deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What utter nonsense. But if you think that sort of attitude could ever fly as policy, WP:NAZI is free bizarrly. MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum from common sense. There's no need to treat logical fallacies as sound arguments. Hell, their fallaciousness inherently implies that the argument is unsound. Sceptre (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never been more convinced you aren't reading the draft at all. You honestly think this was a draft of Obama is a Nazi, rather than dealing with the coverage of the analogy, per the multiple sources that exist. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am taking into account the draft. There's no point in covering a fringe belief just to rebutt it. Inclusion in a mainstream encyclopedia only serves to give it a veneer credence it shouldn't have. And of course it's being covered! He's the President of the United States! I'd like to point you to the infamous "Michelle Obama's arms" AfD to prove that just because we can doesn't mean we must. Sceptre (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware of her arms and related philosophical issues, as you'll see when you look up what I said in that debate. MickMacNee (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy endorse - I am not a fan of Obama and many, many people can testify. I see no support for the page in the previous close or any shred that there could be a rationale for keeping the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'd go for reopening the MfD and letting it run its seven days as the low-drahmahz solution. However, that doesn't seem likely, given the controversial nature of the page, and the sentiment that G10 can apply to non-attack pages (we could try asking at WT:CSD, but I strongly believe the answer would be that it can't). So the best I can really hope for is to urge Stevertigo to see if he can work a small amount of the content into Barack Obama, or whatever other article it should go in. To that end I am willing to email him the content of the last version of the article, but not to restore it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason why we need to keep BLP-violating material (by virtue of it being NPOV-violating) online for seven days just for the sake of process. Sceptre (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the entire article had the same failing, I would agree with you, where BLP is concerned. However, quite a bit of it, while not NPOV, certainly doesn't violate BLP. WP:NPOV is a content policy, and to my knowledge it hasn't been extended into spaces other than the main. lifebaka++ 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NPOV extends into metaspace when living people are involved, otherwise BLP would be ineffective in this regard. It's just normally not brought up. Even if the letter doesn't allow extension into metaspace, the spirit surely does. Sceptre (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing that a {{noindex}} tag couldn't take care of in the meantime, I don't think. Regardless, it isn't like my opinion is anything but a small minority; consensus is in your favor. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse - 7 more days of what is a SNOW delete is bad enough, but 7 more days of libellious BLP violations against a major political figure? No. — neuro(talk) 18:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my reply to Stifle, I have a copy of the text. If you can quote just a single part that is libellous, then I'll withdraw the DRV. I swear it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or failing that, do you in your opinion think this article is libelous, or is it just useful source material for the draft that you want to get rid of? MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote retracted. — neuro(talk) 17:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I despair of this, I really do.
This is a conduct dispute as well as a content dispute; and Stevertigo is a victim as well as a perpetrator. I would personally have !voted "delete", but this is not the totally one-sided issue that the MfD portrays. Even though I think this content does not belong on Wikipedia, I deplore that a small number of very loud voices "won" that so-called "discussion" by shouting down the opposition, and the whole matter was very far from the standards of reasoned debate and collegial dispute I expect from Wikipedians. I'm saddened and disappointed by my Wikipedian colleagues. Regardless of the merits of the matter, it was inappropriate to snow-close, then for the same admin to be reverted and snow-close again. The second snow-closure should certainly have come from an uninvolved admin, and in my opinion there was no excuse for that. Looking at the wider picture surrounding that MfD and the history of its protagonists, I'm going to go with close without result and refer to Arbcom for them to enforce whatever remedy they believe appropriate, because the conduct issues outweigh the content issues here and DRV should refrain from prejudicing Arbcom's decision.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure if "I despair of this" was directed at my !vote here or at the original MfD (if either), but either way, I assure you I wasn't intending to be part of any such troop of loud voices. I voiced my opinion, and I am not going to apologise for that. — neuro(talk) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the above was aimed at you personally, Neuro. "I despair of this" was aimed at the whole Obama article matter in general, and at that MfD in particular.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh whoops, ignore me. I was looking in edit view and it looked like you were replying to me. :) — neuro(talk) 18:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point about the participants, Sceptre tried to make this deletion and review as a fait accompli because Steve was a nasty end running POV pusher, when on investigation, they got the same remedy as each other in the arbcom case. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. First, procedurally. I had attempted to post a keep !vote to the Mfd discussion, but the Mfd was cut short while I was posting. When I asked to closer to reopen, he responded (as the AN/I discussion was spinning out of control) that he had "absolutely no interest in discussing this further while Stevertigo is behaving the way that he is." At that point Spartaz, although acting in good faith, should have recognized that he was no longer an "uninvolved" administrator, and therefore should have stepped back and either restored the MFD for more general review or directly requested that one or more other admins review the request.
- Second, it is very clear that the draft article was not an attack page directed at Barack Obama, or at any identifiable person. It was, if anything, overly favorable to Obama (in terms of NPOV policy) in its debunking of the National Socialist/Nazi claims/analogies. Those claims border on the political equivalent of fringe nonsense, but given their widespread nature probably called for more careful treatment. However, whatever the NPOV problems, those problems were correctable, and correctable problems in a draft article have never, to my knowledge, been grounds for immediate deletion of a draft.
- Third, the general subject is probably notable, even if the draft article is inadequately framed. In the last week or so, I recall seeing pieces in my local newspaper and the New York Times, as well as news or commentary on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News relating to the general subject: the unusually venomous, and unexpectedly widespread, attacks on Obama as a socialist/National Socialist/collectivist/communist/general totalitarian. There's a front-page piece in today's New York Times about organized efforts to block public schools from showing a planned national address by Obama to students as promoting "socialism." Stevertigo's draft was inadequate, but it addressed an at least arguably notable subject in good faith. We expect (or should expect) userspace drafts to be inadequate or flawed. If that's grounds for deletion, there's little point in allowing them at all.
- Fourth, the draft itself was only a few hours old. The MFD was cut off after only three hours, and many of the delete !votes were not well-grounded in policy -- the idea that discussing partisan criticism of an important political figure inherently violates BLP is clearly wrong. While BLP is not limited to articlespace, the strict application of sourcing requirements to articles being actively worked on is contrary to the purposes of both the BLP policy and of userspace drafting. A fundamental principle of BLP is that "We must get the article right." Working up drafts of an article is an important step in getting the article right. Not everyone, to say the least, writes perfectly formed text in a first draft. Not everyone sees all the problems with a draft in their initial review. BLP recognizes such issues when it says, in discussing talk pages and userspace, that contentious unsourced material "not related or useful to making article content choices" is not allowed on talk pages or in userspace. That is, deliberately, a weaker standard than is applied to articlespace. Writing a draft article, in good faith, is obviously part of the process of "making article content choices." Absent clearly abusive content, or a hopeless NPOV violation, an article-in-progress should be left alone. And this draft article wasn't of the "Barack Obama: National Socialist Threat or Nazi Menace?" variety (to steal an often stolen line).
- Finally, a pure utilitarian argument. If editors can't work up articles on contentious subjects as userspace drafts, less examined articles that get dropped into articlespace are likely to be much more damaging than things like what's under discussion, which are likely to be seen only by experience Wikipedian editors who go looking for them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - There wasn't a snowball's chance that the result would have wound up as anything but a delete, as this proposal for a mainspace article was just plain gutter trash, to put it mildly. There was no need to let this drag on for 7 days, as that would have created much more drama than this early closure did. A little bit of WP:BURO once in awhile is a good thing. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, it appears there is not a snowball's chance of anybody making these sorts of wild claims such as "plain gutter trash" are ever going to do anything other than make wild claims, every request for evidence of such is falling on deaf ears. Christ, the draft referenced real events, and there are sources given above for the basic topic, yet you still blindly claim you know for certain what's what. You are right, this whole incident is ignoring beurocracy, quite a bit. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Permission granted to tone it down a few notches, please. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mick, calm down. You've been trying to convince everyone on this "but it wasn't rally an attack on Obama, it was really an attack on those making the Nazi accusations!", and honestly, no one is buying it. It is very coatrack-ish in nature to elevate these off-the-wall, fringe criticisms into a full-blown article. During the primaries, there were vague accusations that once upon a time Obama screwed a guy for coke in the back of a limo. Would you really see any merit in the creation of a Obama and accusations of gay drug use ? Even if the thrust (pun unintended) of the article was to thoroughly debunk the accusations and the accusers? No, because it brings a fringe conspiracy theory to the surface and gives it more coverage than it deserves. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you advocate speedy deleting user space drafts that are a few hours old based on content guidelines? And to quote part of that guideline: "Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents". MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never advocated a speedy deletion, actually. What I did advocate was the deletion of a userspace work in progress that, if it were put into article form, would have run afoul of various core editing policies. I also now advocate the endorsement of the closure of an AfD that was a forgone conclusion. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh Looking at the content, it isn't strictly a a G10. It's close, because it has this weird quasi-coatrack quality. But it isn't close enough that I would have speedied it or tagged it. It appears...at least on face...to chronicle events surrounding the actual accusations of fascism towards liberals. But I would vote for it to be deleted in MfD. If it were an article I would vote for it to be deleted at AfD. Obviously those two things don't mean that the article would never exist. But I don't have much hope. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Endorse Don't know why this is even up here, its going to be endorsed, might as well have saved us all the manhours this drama-llama of an article will cause here and just let it die. BLP concerns are only the tip of the iceberg. --Mask? 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I had actually previously (Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama/Archive_3#Obama_and_race) proposed that this topic be covered (race + Hitler comparison - skim too quick and you'll miss the latter; couple of sources referenced). Obviously it needs to be done in an encyclopedic way, and obviously this deleted page isn't it. Maybe it should start out as a section anyway, perhaps at Public image of Barack Obama. Rd232 talk 20:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The closure of this MfD made a mockery of Wikipedia's claims of impartiality, neutrality, and good faith. While I don't feel there is enough material here for a discrete article, there is certainly enough material to warrant inclusion in Public Image of Barack Obama or some such place. A link was even posted to a Guardian article mentioning the accusations of National Socialism and comparing them to the very same accusations that accompanied the creation of the National Health Service in 1948. Most, if not all of the delete votes were based upon misreading/misunderstanding the policies being quoted or simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it had both Obama and National Socialism in the title. Snow closing an MfD, especially when there was already a thread at ANI where it was suggested that it be allowed to run its course and not snowed just to avoid this drama was probably not the wisest move. L0b0t (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing biased in swiftly dealing with the coverage of unduly weighted libellious logical fallacies. And your post seems to support the "Nazi" accusation being in an article about healthcare instead of being in a coatrack about Obama (which this article basically was). And even then, I doubt it'd actually get in because of it's fallaciousness: consider that while they did kill fifteen million untermensch, they also poured a lot of resources in an efficient road infrastructure which was a precursor to similar schemes in the rest of the world and set up one of the biggest automobile companies in the world (not to mention that Hitler himself was an ardent animal rights advocate and a frequent sugar-eater). But hey, if you think that "the Nazis did it" is a valid argument to consider coverage of in Wikipedia, then perhaps you should stop watching the Herbie films or use back-roads whenever you travel. Sceptre (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The page has obvious NPOV problems, but it is not an attack page. We have to keep in mind that this page was created less than 24 hours ago. Give him some time to work on it. It probably doesn't merit it's own article, but it may fit somewhere. Evil saltine (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) - vote retracted Evil saltine (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The BLP policy mandates that any content about a living person that can not be neutral must be deleted; see WP:BLPDEL. Sceptre (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the policy you linked to says at all. Rather it says-"Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed....Page deletion is normally a last resort." Now for the umpteenth time can you please point out exactly where in the article these libelous passages are to be found? I'm looking at the draft right now and there is nothing here that violates BLP or constitutes an attack page. L0b0t (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Looking at the page again, even though most of the article is discounting the claims made about Obama, the first two paragraphs still state those claims without attribution. I think a well-sourced rewrite would be acceptable. Evil saltine (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Attribution can easily be done. This is exactly the type of discussion we should have been having in the MfD, that way we could actually be working on these issues. But now, because someone had a burr under their blanket and snowed the discussion then snowed the discussion again after it was reopened, we're here at DRV with people trying to bring The Love Bug and Beavis & Butthead into this[1]. L0b0t (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The problem was that this barely had any weight to include it's own article, it would have easily ventured into BLP problems, it would have been hard to keep the addition/article NPOV, and there probably be other policies that it would have violated too. Endorse the deletion. Brothejr (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist in the hope of a better discussion. It's probably a vain hope, in the view of some of the comments above, but we should at least try. The present page is not a BLP violation nor an attack page. That it might "easily venture into BLP problems" can be said of any BLP. In my own opinion, I think the peculiar meme that calls Obama a nazi (or alternatively a socialist) is certainly worth an encyclopedia article, though I personally would not attempt to write one here. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Return to MFD. It looks very much like any MFD would duplicate the points being made here, so I'm not sure that a new discussion would add any light to the issue - but I'm equally certain that it would add heat. This is already a hotly contested issue, both for the subject(s), and for the ZOMG Wheel War. But I can't really endorse the deletion, either. So we'll sacrifice 10 days of our lives on the alter of process, then likely end up deleting the page anyway. There are good points to be made here, but I can't shake an uneasy feeling that the whole thing has already Godwin'd itself. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - DGG's argument is valid. If it is not an attack page, it should not be speedy deleted. And given the quality of comments on this page, it is clear that a consensus could easily favor keep. Although I have never been a fan of these some argue articles. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There are many things to evaluate here, not the least of which are the points brought forth by DGG, Magog, and Ultraexactzz. Having read through the article several times, I'm simply not seeing a violation of NPA. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to organize the prose in a text file, then add the {{noindex}}, and include some of the 6,000+ "obamacare" and 7,000+ "obama socialism" news.google.com references prior to posting to user space. While the article "as it stood" certainly read more like a op-ed piece than an encyclopedic entry, and did show signs of pointyness, the topic is indeed a viable candidate for inclusion. User space sandboxes are designed to flesh-out these problems prior to movement to article space, and I find it rather disturbing that an editor's efforts would be chilled in a mere 4-hour MfD window. At the very least, the MfD should have been allowed to span a full 24-hour day, and preferably the full 7-day discussion. We're talking about user-space here folks, and I'm not partial to shutting people out before they've had a chance to work through the kinks in their efforts. — Ched : ? 05:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. From this discussion, it seems clear that using G10 to delete this article is a stretch. The snow close was by definition a procedural irregularity, leaving only the question whether the irregularity was material to the outcome. Given the !votes here, I think that there's a reasonable probability that, had the discussion been allowed to run for at least 24 hours, or preferably 7 days, the outcome would have been different, especially since we give substantial leeway to pages in userspace. Tim Song (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. It is clear from the varied opinions expressed in this DRV that a WP:SNOW closure of the MfD was clearly inappropriate. For one administrator to snow close, be reverted and then snow close again is inexcusable behaviour and deserves censure. There has been no evidence presented this met the criteria of WP:CSD#G10 (and I can't see any in the draft myself). Had this been in article space, then it would not have been an appropriate article - which is exactly why it was in userspace so that a verified, NPOV article could be developed, for a controversial topic with this many potential references (>6000) this takes a lot longer than the few hours it was given. The entire deletion episode has been a disgrace to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist notably per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and DGG. A poor draft (hence still a draft) of a notable topic, and by no means a speedily deletable attack page or BLP violation. Sandstein 10:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - and please wait before relisting. Having reviewed the article in question it is certainly not a snowball. Although it is true that it is unsourced, it was only a few hours old and seemed cogent and sourceable. The subject matter apears notable, and it is plausible that this subject matter can be addressed in a stand-alone article. Laying out the sections and structure, then adding sources, is a reasonable way to compose an article. Surely an editor allowed a little time to bring articles under construction in their own user space up to verifiability standards. That's why people edit articles on their own pages in the first place. In the long run, either the article has to be finished then introduced to article space, or else it's not going to serve any purpose and could be deleted as a maintenance matter. Once it's proposed, it may or may not meet the community's approval. But we can't reasonably speculate in advance that the finished article will not be acceptable. Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I can see where this is going I suppose someone should just snow this, restore and relist the MFD. Spartaz Humbug! 20:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. At least then we can throw this article out with the help of the mystical Progress Pixie. Sceptre (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm sorry if this comes across as dickish but it seems, to me anyway, that it is exactly that kind of eagerness to WP:SNOW discussions that brings us here to DRV. Have a little patience and let's respect process please. L0b0t (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was a joke, L0b0t. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the joke is on me and I apologize (hustles off to wipe the egg from his face). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was more a jab at process-wonks than the concept of process itself. Sceptre (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn and relist The article draft is about a valid topic and all the BLP issues were easily correable. There's no valid speedy criterion here and this was a bad use of SNOW. Whether we decide to keep the draft after a full MfD is a distinct issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which kind of sums up world affairs rather nicely...
L0b0t wrote:
- (quote) "..it is exactly that kind of eagerness to WP:SNOW discussions that brings us here to DRV. Have a little patience and let's respect process please."
L0b0t is not only right, but he's also accurate:
- (paraphrasing): "Eagerness" and "SNOW" indicate a lack of "patience" and "respect [for] process" and "bring[] us here to DRV."
But he's also extremely wrong in a few distinct ways:
- He's wrong to think that he should be regarded as "dickish" for saying the plain truth in a seriously polite way. In fact, what he's missing in all of this is:
- That its not "eagerness" that makes people "SNOW" things they don't like, its DICK.
- And its not a lack of "patience" that makes them vote "delete" and "SNOW" without actually reading what they are deleting, its ILLITERACY.
- Lastly, its not a lack of "respect [for] process" that "brings us here to DRV," its a 'lack of respect for people' (like myself) that takes them all the way to ANI and then WP:RFAR/DPP and beyond..
I won't comment too much about people who habitually and deliberately misquote policy, but Spectre is a very special case.. And now.. a break. -Stevertigo 04:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oy, stop with the veiled personal attacks, man. It's very much not awesome. lifebaka++ 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
motion to close this and relist
Since Spartaz (closer of the MfD) has essentially agreed with the relist request, motion to just wrap this DRV up and head back to a new MfD. This is becoming a WP:SOAPBOX. Tarc (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, why didn't you just sort of forsee this, instead of making those innacurate and snooty comments at WP:RFAR/DPP? I mean, I understand this is going to be embarrassing for you, Spartaz, Sceptre, and others, but there's no way to stop that now. -Stevertigo 04:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve, the only sort of embarrassment I feel is embarrassment for you, bordering on pity. I still feel the page is an idiotic attack article with no redeeming value, and will make that point, again, in the second go-around. I made this proposal not only because the closing admin has apparently relented, but also because you have decided to turn this forum into yet another venue of eDrama. The last thing you need is another stage to vamp from. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmph. Several people above have actual copy and say that it was quite the opposite of an "attack page." This was never in doubt, and you may want to read it yourself before you comment further. The question now is: Why do we let teenage idiots - who use SNOW just because it gives them a hard-on, look to gamer sites for bright ideas, misquote Godwin's conjecture seven times a day, don't read what they want to delete, and cite BLP for anything that even mentions a living person - get to make overriding decisions about editorial policy and content? Such that I and others have had to waste days of our time dealing with throngs of fetal bureaucrats rather than editing and improving things -Stevertigo 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For someone talking about "throngs of fetal bureaucrats" and "teenage idiots", your immature personal attacks seem to speak louder than your words. — neuro(talk) 06:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve, I read it before I ever weighed in in An/I or MfD. You posted a link to it on the main Obama page, remember? I've explained why elevating retarded "Obama is a Nazi!" pejoratives made by fringe nutters to a full-blown article is considered a BLP violating attack, much the same as Allegations that George Bush had a coke problem would be problematic, regardless of the sourcing. So please, drop the "OMG noone read it!" canard. You aren't some misunderstood artist struggling with the philistines here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enough...please. The petty I told-you-so comments and color commentary about other editors are unwelcome, unhelpful, and unwarranted. In my opinion, that time would have been better spent tracking down sources and whipping that higgledy-piggledy article into shape if it is to stand a chance at the next MfD. On a more positive note, for any of y'all in my neck of the woods (Brooklyn), Sunday night is J'ouvert and Monday is the West Indian Day Parade. So come on out, the parade has some great food. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (To L0b0t) Hm. Valid, and forgive me for using your moderate points to take swipes at the relevant indefensibles. However, at this point I'm quite experienced in working with these kids, and I know from experience that polite comments and rational arguments just don't work. At least they didn't work the last time. In any case, these kids aren't going anywhere and thus they do need to learn some interaction skills. So what better way to teach them than by speaking the language? One does not go to Djibouti and expect people to understand their most nuanced English.
- Tarc: "I've explained why elevating retarded [] pejoratives made by fringe nutters to a full-blown article is considered a BLP violating attack" - Your concept of BLP rests entirely on your own subjective usage of "retarded," "fringe," "nutters," and "attack." These terms are utterly insufficient when talking about claims that are actually much worse, as they draw upon a wider strategy of political attacks, and base themselves upon a deep cultural ignorance about history.
- Tarc: "Allegations that George Bush had a coke problem would be problematic, regardless of the sourcing." - Note however that because news sources reported these allegations, we are bound to cover them, regardless of how inane or true they are. Someone above made the point that even if its not a valid topic for a full article, the material therin could be touched on in another.
- Tarc: "Steve, I read it before I ever weighed in in An/I or MfD." - All evidence says you just read the title. Tarc: "You posted a link to it on the main Obama page, remember?" - Talk page, not article. Remember to be accurate, even in your talk page comments. Tarc: "So please, drop the "OMG noone read it!" canard." - Even if you did read it, its fairly clear that you didn't understand it. And even if you did understand it, and thus must have bluntly put aside any thoughts of treating the subject matter in some more moderate way, you cannot speak for at least six or seven others, who by all appearances have none of your.. whatever.
- Tarc: "You aren't some misunderstood artist struggling with the philistines here." - Setting aside the ethnic slur, which itself was no doubt rooted in some reasonably accurate impressions, I am, actually... a misunderstood artist. And yes, when people try to just speedy-delete new work in my own subspace according to completely bogus and made-up notions of policy, then yes the impression I get is that I am dealing with a culture of obtuse and belligerent individuals. -Stevertigo 16:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve, wading through your Wall of Text bon mots is not really worth the time, but two points can unfortunately not go unchallenged. One, I read the original and understood it just fine. Two, your "Note however that because news sources reported these allegations, we are bound to cover them" statement is just fundamentally incorrect. Michelle Obama's arms and Barack Obama fly swatting incident show that being covered in a news source is not the only arbiter of what is article-worthy. I know the "presumed" aspect of the general notability guideline is a tough cookie to wrap one's head around, but, given time, I know you can do it. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, relist, and keep open for at least 24 hours. I declined the original speedy because I thought it was a borderline case that was worthy of a discussion. However, unless someone adds sources, and explains where it can be used, I think it probably should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist, I will vote "Delete" because I think the article will never, ever be NPOV, but the article wasn't bad enough to justify subverting our established process and conventions. The discussion ought to be left open for the full allowed time period. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Arbcom having (very unhelpfully) refused to consider the case, I suppose we're stuck with considering this at DRV—a place totally unsuited to this matter, but there's nowhere else. I'm going to run with overturn and immediately list at AfD.
If this recommendation is accepted, please could whoever's unlucky enough to be stuck with closing this DRV, say when listing at AfD that: 1) The discussion should run for the full seven days; and 2) The AfD closer should be a totally uninvolved admin, meaning someone who has not previously been involved in any Obama-article-related drama whatsoever.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fastness-ness and slowness-ness
I just wanted to point out now how slow this is going. Yes, I know that deletionists like to do things speedy and SNOW close things early - within mere moments of notice, apparently - and the last thing we want to do is act like the deletionists above had been acting. I enjoyed very much hearing the occasional, "changing vote," and "I see where this is going," though I would love it if these were nowhere near as terse, or as strangely devoid of the invective common to their earlier commentary.
Anyway, as some have noted that's one of the main reason why we are here, and most of the "overturn" votes above contain language that notes the problems with this speediness and SNOWiness. Now I am told by someone on my talk that this will stay open for seven days. This strange disparity between how deletion and deletion review are applied is probably not what we want. Keep in mind that most of the problems surrounding this case were brought about not just by a speedy close or a SNOW close but by an notion of an "early" close that had the partisan effect of shutting down ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism. Now it appears the partisans, eager to speedy and SNOW before, are not quite so interested anymore now that DRV has come out against them. Now that things have slowed down, and we all have time to think, and maybe even communicate, Im wondering how long this DRV should take to close, now that its activity is quite low.
We all understand now that speediness has issues in its own right: Speediness must have been the largest contributor to the above mentioned inability to read the actual material up for deletion, and conversely this inability to read the actual material up for deletion must have contributed greatly to its speedy treatment. I see a pattern. But more importantly I see a solution, and it's one that generally involves literacy, civility, respect for ongoing discussion, and AGF, such that make speediness mostly an invalid notion, if not altogether less than necessary. Strangely enough, this solution of "respecting ongoing discussion" would not have just slown down the XFD's, ANI's, but it would speed up this DRV to something more than the snail crawl it currently is. -Stevertigo 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let it run its full course, is my advice. A bit of cool-down time is doing all kinds of good here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the plain thoughtfulness of your earlier comments, I will not object to going along. The only mitigating issue is that the Arbcom case is not actually closed (it was filed on the 5th), and delays here will probably mean the filing will expire, if it is not given an extension. Given the "all kinds of" bad brought about by the ways in which this was handled, I'm inclined to do all I can to see that Arbcom deals with it. (Putting aside of course the sense of futility that usually comes along with dealing with them). Regards, -Stevertigo 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that things go better without the words "inclusionists" and "deletionists". They are very tiresome and belie an unwillingness to debate on equal ground. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But how else is one supposed to refer to the above-mentioned apparent tendency of people to delete subspace drafts without actually reading them? The term "illiterate" misses the point that 'deletion' is the actual objective, and the term "speediness" likewise misses that the object of such speediness is 'deletion.' So, we put an "-ism" at the end of it and call it 'accurate.' What of it? Has it not made a good stick to hit deletionists with for six years now? -Stevertigo 00:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It hasn't. Continually using the term pejoratively detracts from your point. lifebaka++ 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuously lying about people not "actually reading" what they vote to delete is a bit of a detractor as well. Tarc (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You could avoid assuming that they haven't read things they might advocate deletion for. Protonk (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm still a bit hung-up on all of the "attack page" comments. Other people came along and actually read it, and said to the effect of 'Um.. its not even close.. its like the opposite.. not attacking him.. a bit pro-POV.. easily fixable..' Anyway, +illiteracy brought about by ++speedy and --DBAD is still my first choice as far as plausible explanations go, but I'm always open to alternatives. -Stevertigo 05:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This business of imputing "plausible explanations" on other people is at least 75% of the problem with this userspace draft. There are those who've decided what the most "plausible explanation" is for Stevertigo to write a draft about Obama and National Socialism, and there are those who've decided what the most "plausible explanation" is for speedy-deleting.Me, I think one of the most "plausible explanations" for all this drama is a failure, on both sides, to AGF. It's not the most proximate cause of the controversy, but a bit more AGF would certainly have cut down the drama.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
