- Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Complete abuse of administrator power by Ricky81682. How could we let a featured article or a featured list quality work like this be destroyed? First, instead of actual discussion with Kasaalan over the work he created, the admin abuses his power to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, with only minimal participation and it gets deleted. Then the powers that be ignore the views of Alansohn and Ceedjee at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 16. Then, after Kasaalan rewrites the article to follow the AFD, he goes and lists it again for AFD without discussion. THEN, whining about Kasaalan's simple attempts to get more intelligent discussion, the admin goes to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Possible_convassing_concern and threatens yet again. What's wrong with asking people who know the issue to comment? What's wrong with notifying the Palestinian noticeboard about an article that affects them? It's not an Israeli issue. Finally, to further abuse his power, the great admin whines again that he's losing to his buddies, so that his friend can close the AFD in three days without discussion. We cannot allow people to be abused this way. A simple glance at the discussion among the people who truly understand Rachel and truly understand the need for this article all support it, it's clear that it should have been kept. Kasaalan listed everything at Talk:Rachel Corrie and instead of letting whoever just managed to wander by and give their ignorant views decide this issue, we should wait until the people who know and understand Rachel and what she means the best have thought about it and decided. Why make rash decisions within a few days when there's so much to lose? Suggest immediate restoration and listing as a featured article or a featured list following Ceedjee's discussion. In fact, this should be put on the front of Wikipedia immediately. Biasprotector (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close, largely because of the numerous bad faith accusations against this one, that one and the other one made here, that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. This appears to have been filed by a brand new user with a suspiciously high degree of proficiency in the ways of wikipedia. I find the special pleading that editors should defer to the judgement of "the people who truly understand rachel" because, well, obviously the people who argued for a merge clearly don't understand anything unworthy of adult conversation.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral and yes, I know it's strange coming from me, but I'm a policy wonk for the most part. Ignoring the clear bad faith allegations, the last point (not the very last one obviously) about it being closed early is concerning. I didn't think it was a clear G4, otherwise, I would have left the redirect I put in place. And it clearly wasn't a SNOW situation. I think it deserved the full time, but I also understand WP:IARing it away. A warning to stay away from the fun of the I-P universe. And Bali, as I noted, read the entire AFD, this user's complaints about who's judgment isn't alone, for what that's worth. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just add that having reviewed the AFD more thoroughly, i think it was a good close reflecting both the policy arguments (needless content fork) and appears to have been the recreation of an article that failed AFD recently without going through the DRV process, so appears a good close on the process side.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've blocked Biasprotector (talk · contribs) as an obvious sockpuppet being used inappropriately to foment contention in projectspace. I believe that this discussion should be closed as a bad-faith nomination, but will leave a decision on that matter to others. MastCell Talk 21:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I was the one who asked for it to be kept here. Probably a dumb idea, but I had some concerns procedurally and given the number of users who were disgruntled with the close, I figured we could all ignore the attacks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Endorse due to lack of actual arguments: a) nomination contains lots of bad faith accusations, those are usually speedy closed to cut drama b) nominator appears to be a sock created to avoid this discussion being linked to his main account, that's not good (AGF and all, but it seems that there is strong WP:DUCK evidence of who this person really is) c) nominator makes no mention of the arguments in the AfD d) the only real argument is that the comments of two editors were ignored in the DRV of a similar article, not in the AfD e) sending an article to AfD is not "admin abuse" since any non-administrator can do it.
- A nomination without all these problems can probably be done, and it should explain why it wouldn't be a POV fork, and show some good sources that show that this is really an encyclopedic topic, and not just an indiscriminate list of any source mentioning her. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: What was the policy basis for that close? I'm not seeing it, which makes me lean towards overturn at the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(later) I should probably elaborate on that. The closer's justification seems to be that a similarly-titled article was merged a month ago, and the consensus of that previous AfD was to merge. But when I read the actual debate attached to that AfD, what I see is a fairly apparent "no consensus". What I want to understand is how the closer got from the debate to the result, because I'm not seeing the links at all.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in the original AFD (for Artistic Tributes), the decision was merge. It was never actually merged since the article was instead moved to "Public reactions" with some additional text. I myself changed it to a redirect after month (since I originally thought none of the content was worth saving in the first place as did some others), and was told by the author that it was a "new" article, so it would be an abuse to use the original AFD as justification. I'm guessing the closing admin thought this wasn't a new article but a pretext to save the last one. Expand the first extended content section to get a better idea of the history, including a discussion of which editors have the proper experience, assuming anyone supports that argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see that, but was it a consensus? I don't think so.
I want to understand the policy reasons why the closer didn't judge that debate as "no consensus". Because it seems to me that the close has little to do with the debate. I think the closer might have decided the debate was defective, disregarded it and instead, acted as decided in an entirely different debate. Which is an automatic "overturn" from me as a bad close. But maybe the closer can cite some policy that supports their actions.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse due to bad-faith nomination. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I renominated it in good-faith on the basis the closer didn't close according to the debate, Stifle, how would you react then? We can go that way if you like.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would probably support an overturn and relist, but the amount of extraneous comments here means that I would only support that if this DRV was closed and a new one created. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that, and I have a certain amount of sympathy with it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The result of the AFD I found was to merge. (I'm including delete/merge combinations here since I lot of people don't know it's not a valid choice). After reading the discussion I can't see a consensus or an explanation to delete the article as a delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without getting involved in faith discussions of deletion nomination, review or any other outcome, we should somehow discuss the content. :Yet a lack of getting involved to the main article, and without knowing the case fully, it is hard for others to appreciate why the separate title is important and necessary. The voting and admin decisions were based on somewhat without reading the case fully.
- However creating the Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie is somewhat a broad article, and without help of other editors a quality article is not possible in short term. The Rachel Corrie article should somehow deal with her life, especially her early life actions more deeply and with her death. While a public reactions title should be separated to represent the case in more detail. Yet somehow we couldn't create a successful Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie title, because we couldn't have much time to develop it, before it got deleted.
- We first created the page as Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie but it nominated for deletion claiming it is POV Fork, deletion voters suggested a more broad Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie would be more suitable, I tried to create it, yet they again liked to delete it for it is fork.
- Ricky shouldn't nominated the article, without first tagging first and discussing with other main article editors, if you ask me. Most of Our most active editors of last 6 months from the main article taking wiki breaks currently, and it is no good time for deletion nominations or reviews. But I can tell the last admin that closes the title in 3 days with some arguments, he did not seemed to investigate the case fully, and even not bothered to read Ricky possibly. Because the original deletion admin advised another deletion review would be good, so Ricky nominated the article himself to discuss this further. Ricky later stated I could even ask another deletion review since admin closed too early but I didn't bother to get another review, because people not reading the case before they vote, also the time wasted during reviews could be spent on improving the article itself.
- 'Main Question I already implemented the Documentaries on Rachel Corrie to the main page. Actually we may also implement, political reactions to the main article somehow. Yet, there are more than 30 songs devoted to Rachel Corrie from 30 different professional artists (while half of them highly notable and famous, some others not much famous) all around the world, and we have a good table representing the songs. Yet without creating a separate title, it is not much possible to implement the table, and artist comments into the main article, since we have length and reference number limitations according to the guidelines. Only the song table is based on near 30 references itself. So my question is, is it advisable to create a List of Songs Dedicated to Rachel Corrie or List of Songs (and maybe Poems) Written for Rachel Corrie for dedicated song tables, and artist comments on why they wrote a song on Rachel Corrie. Kasaalan (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a copy of the content to be merged in main page discussion page Songs and Poems Dedicated to Rachel Corrie. I have other things to do, so I may not be around for a while. Kasaalan (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you created a table of those songs and poems (I still debate whether the sources are appropriate) doesn't mean that we must find a place for it to be. As I noted before, the talk page hadn't been edited in days and none of "main article editors" you've wanted commented on the first AFD, the first DRV, the actual article afterwards, the main article afterwards, the second AFD, and now here, excluding the ones you specifically notified. At some point, we cannot keep on waiting for the people you think are qualified, even if the nominator thinks so as well. Do you care at all about the views of those who actually took the time to make an opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources has verifiability, yet it is not about sources. You are determined to object any page titled List of Songs Dedicated to Rachel Corrie or Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie because you claim it is against guidelines or claim it is a (POV) FORK. You argue guidelines, but quoting or applying them just the partially. Yet the full wiki guidelines clearly refer it is neither POV, nor FORK, also there are numerous articles in the wikipedia, that have been reviewed by numerous other editors and approved, so it is not other examples exist case in any way, since the wiki guidelines are still same and applied likewise to any article. But in none of the deletion discussions we could discuss the policies fully, instead we wasted more time on faith of the parties, which is why the discussions were not productive.
- You claim the same arguments, yet you still lack proper ones. In the last 1 year, the article has been improved greatly, by hard work of other editors from conflicting parties after month long debates. None of the editors I refer is my friends by the way, and I have serious conflicts with some of them. As you haven't replied to my previous questions, here I am asking again, did you even read the article from start to end even once before nomination, or yet. It is not that I don't care about others opinions, but they state their opinions without fully investigating the case, and without knowing the issue stating an opionion on the issue not helps much. That is what you have been doing the whole time. Without reading the article fully, or contributing it (excluding your 1 minor edit at the time of your nomination), tagging the article for improvement or without even taking other main page editors' opinions, you nominated the article for deletion, I cannot call that a constructive approach. We could have improved the article, instead these long debates over deletion of it. Kasaalan (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing against it because pulling together every single song that mentions her is a mix of trivia or a synthesis of sources, not an encyclopedia article. A discussion about how she's received in the artistic community, by secondary sources, I could possibly live with (and probably won't be worth more than a paragraph), but tables of songs based on nonsense like a iTunes search for her name is just a mess. Not every piece of content is work keeping, and sometimes people just say delete it and move on. And it seems clear that discussing it with others doesn't matter, since practically nobody you want has bothered to comment. I know, I know, again, we should wait for them to be back from the wikibreaks, which sounds a lot like the nominator's argument. I have read the articles in question, I have commented since then at Talk:Rachel Corrie, a review of the various versions of this article showed me it couldn't ever be anything remotely useful without a complete overhaul and as I noted in the AFD, your constant reverting any attempt to summarize or remove any detail at all make it impossible to actually work on. Even the closing admin from the AFD gave up after a month and made it into a redirect. I refuse to wait around arguing with you until you feel like the discussion is complete. Frankly, I think the nominator would be easier to deal with than you. At least he put it up at DRV instead of just complaining. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike all that. I'm not getting into another argument with you about how I don't need your approval to edit these things or list them for deletion. The last part is accurate though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked you if you have read the article fully at the time of nomination, you didn't answer, you still haven't answered if you read them fully at that time or yet. Because you have been coming up with some clearly wrong arguments, and you still do, so I am not sure you have read the articles fully or checked references correctly. The itunes site used as a reference for song lengths, not more than that. I explained that to you already, but you keep coming with same wrong argument. If the references are the issue, I can come up with better references. But you object the page totally, not only to references. Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are numerous articles in the same manner of Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie in wikipedia, and you haven't showed any guideline that restricts creating it in the first place yet. When you do so, then the discussion is over, but you coming with vague arguments. Tell me what is the difference between Cultural depictions of George Washington and Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie articles. Kasaalan (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse result, and note that gratuitous use of boldface doesn't make your argument any stronger. Otto4711 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It stresses the parts I like to point out most. Especially the questions I ask and my replies to others arguments. I write long, not everyone reads every part, so I use bold for main sentences. Kasaalan (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to no consensous The AfD should have been allowed to run it's course. The closing after 4 days and (if I read the closer's comments right) ignoring that AfD was simply the wrong call. I suspect we'll end up at AfD, and then DrV again. But the closing admin could have avoided all this. Trout to the bad faith rant of the DrV nom. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought the AfD close was out of process, but I also felt it shouldn't have had to go to AfD again, as one AfD (and subsequent DRV) already demonstrated that it should stay deleted. This DRV was a bad faith one initiated by a sockpuppet, and the well was poisoned to begin with. It's a little too late, but I felt that if it was to go to DRV, it should be sent there by a legitimate editor, not a socking disruptive editor hiding behind an alternate account to launch attacks. So I'm conflicted. I can't endorse the closure, nor can I move to overturn it. Enigmamsg 02:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm profoundly disturbed by these thoughts from Enigmaman and Stifle, because I feel they amount to a refusal to challenge a bad close because of the nominator's bad faith.
I agree that bad faith is apparent, but we hold admins to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary editors. When an admin is dealing with an ordinary editor, don't we still expect the admin to follow policy even if the ordinary editor is not?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidently you now agree. :) I could never move to overturn based on a DRV like this one, because quite frankly, it should've been closed immediately, as the sock was blocked indefinitely and this was a bad faith nom. Enigmamsg 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's say I accept the inevitable closure of this DRV as a bad faith nom, but I don't accept that the AfD result should stand unchallenged because I feel the AfD closer erred by not actually closing according to the debate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (later) Speedy close as a bad faith nomination, per Stifle; I'm prepared to accept that the bad faith taints this discussion beyond repair. But I shall bring this back as an untainted nomination.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My main question is why Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie or Songs Written for Rachel Corrie page gets a systematical rejection, though countless other examples are available. (I literally mean countless, this is not a OTHERCASESEXIST argument) Wiki guidelines lead us creating sub articles when you face with length issues. When I first created Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie it is rejected as being POV since it doesn't contain criticisms (although there were no song or poem dedicated to Rachel Corrie criticism available as far as we know). They advised me to create a Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie in a broader sense (which I implemented political reactions and the criticism caricature) it is again rejected as being POV FORK (It is not my or anyone's fault there is not much reliable criticism on Rachel Corrie available, that is the main reason there are not much criticism in the main article too). FORK guideline itself advises we should create a sub article, and a sub article for layout and length reasons cannot be considered as FORK anyway. So after Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie and Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie got rejected, I again offered a Songs and Poems Depicting Rachel Corrie article, guess what, they didn't like the idea too, (though countless same manner articles in the wikipedia available and approved for years), and even List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" is not considered as trivia(I don't consider it as trivia, yet even if this article stays how artistic tributes to Rachel Corrie page gets deleted). I can provide numerous same manner articles like Cultural depictions of George Washington, Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley, Kent_State_shootings#Artistic_tributes, Red_Pajamas_Records#Tributes, Spartacus#Modern_depictions_of_Spartacus, Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, Cultural depictions of spiders, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh, List of artistic depictions of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for example. I really cannot understand how these pages treated differently if same guidelines applies for every single article. Kasaalan (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points. One, that very clearly is an 'OTHERCASESEXIST argument'. Two, are you really comparing Corrie to Elvis, George Washington, and Gandhi? Apples and oranges. Enigmamsg 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of your points are wrong. No this is not an othercasesexist argument, because wikipedia is full of same content articles not only a few. Throwing guidelines here and there, but not refferring the main idea behind the guideline not useful. The Wikipedia:Other stuff exists guideline clearly explains that, for consistency other articles that established and continued to exist in the same nature is a good insight for notability of the concept.
- "... such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.
- In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."
- I don't know if you have any insight on Gandhi's life, thoughts and actions, but if you read his life, you can easily tell the similarities between Gandhi and Rachel Corrie's approach to peace. The same guidelines cannot be applied to the apples and oranges differently within Wikipedia. So if you claim the cases are different, you should first prove why they are different and why the same guidelines should be applied differently. Kasaalan (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you created Artistic Tributes, it was rejected, it went to DRV, that decision was accepted. You moved the article and changed it to Public reactions, that was somewhat rejected (disputable), and now we are here. Now if this DRV or another AFD or whatever is again a merge or a straight-out delete, will you again create another title and repeat these arguments again for another round? It's not going on the main article as Talk:Rachel Corrie indicates. Is there a point where consensus and finality actually mean anything? Otherwise, what is your goal here, other than arguing that Rachel Corrie is on the same field in terms of notability as Elvis, Gandhi, and George Washington? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the page, you nominated it for deletion before you contributed to the main article or artistic tributes pages, or without tagging or bothering to discuss this issue with other editors first. The majority of votes, including 2 main page editor's vote was in favor of keeping the article, or merging into a more broader public reactions page. However the admin closed the page, though he admitted he doesn't even know who Rachel Corrie is, so he didn't read sub article fully too. Yet some delete voters including you and closing admin advised a more broad public reaction page would be better, Therefore I tried to create a title accordingly. But again it is nominated, but this time it is perceived as a "workaround" for deletion so it rejected by majority of votes, yet 2 overturn votes by editors after they read the article. Kasaalan (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument was textbook other stuff exists. That's why that page is there. It addresses arguments like yours. "Allow me to make this because there's 'x tribute to x' elsewhere, so that proves that it should stay." No, it doesn't. Especially when it is apples to oranges. You cannot argue that Rachel Corrie is anywhere near as notable as those people. Rachel Corrie became notable with her death. All those people you referred to were extremely notable while living. That's a fairly significant distinction. Enigmamsg 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You just partially take some guideline sentences to reach a synthesis, guideline clearly says "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts" against your allegations. No they don't have the same level of notability, but they all have notability. Also Gandhi has at least 10 times more long coverage in wikipedia, and more than 10 titles dedicated under him. Gandhi template proves it. They have coverage by sources, not your allegations. The same guidelines apply likewise to every article. Also your other argument clearly false, she is not only notable for her death, if that would be the case any westerner that IDF killed would have same notability. But no, she is notable because her activism works in Evergreen, she is notable because her actions, she is notable because her writings, which were published and become an international theatre play and even part of a cantata, she has over 30 songs devoted to her name depicting her actions even if she died in 23 years old. Did you even read the article fully yet or are you still just speculating. Kasaalan (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are honestly going to argue that Rachel Corrie was at famous as Gandhi? You can't honestly be arguing that Corrie deserves the same amount of coverage as Gandhi? From a basic results perspective, I'd say Gandhi accomplished more but it's clear from your user page what your perspective is. And it looks like you still argue that the mere existence of things (the play, her writings) indicates her notability, not independent third-party analysis of them, which is what [[WP:RS}] asks for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being famous and being notable are not directly related. No Gandhi is at least 10 times more famous than Rachel Corrie, at Gandhi is cumulatively more than 10 times more coverage than Rachel Corrie in wikipedia. As I stated before, Gandhi has more notability, but they both have notability. And there is no he is more famous therefore his article should be longer, she is less famous trim her article policy exists. Also if you know about Gandhi at all you can easily tell the similarities between their actions. Arun Gandhi speaking at The Rachel Corrie Foundation’s 2006 Peace Works Conference All Rachel Corrie articles, build upon references, though you try to claim separate "famousness" for every single piece under a title, for a song, written by a notable party like Patti Smith for another notable party like Rachel Corrie and being covered by a verifiable source is enough to mention it in the relevant article. Kasaalan (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " Rachel Corrie was 23 years old, from Olympia; a sane, articulate, and dedicated American who had studied with care the methods of Gandhi and Martin Luther King." David Bromwich Professor of Literature at Yale The Huffington Post Thoughts on the Death of Rachel Corrie May 22, 2009 Kasaalan (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I said merge at the AfD, and I continue to think that the proper closure and the one supported by the majority. DGG (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
