- User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This was deleted as an WP:CSD#G10. I think the original page, an official charge sheet, ended up on this user-page through a good faith mistake on my part -- as it was material that would have been completely compliant for inclusion on wikisource, and would have been more useful there. When the page was drawn to my attention I immediately transwikied it to wikisource. At the old page I left a link to the new wikisourced version, and a list of terms mentioned in the charge sheet. I did this because I thought these were all terms that might, potentially, merit a reference to wikisourced page. I planned to look at each one, later, and decide whether I thought they merited that reference.The deletion log says the deleting administrator explained the reason for their deletion on my talk page. That would be this comment. Not putting this page at wikisource in the first place was a mistake. That is where it belonged. That is where it would have been more useful. Why the admin thinks I would have purposely limited the usefulness of a page by putting it on the wrong WMF project page is beyond me. I dispute the admin′s characterization that I was being disingenious. The admin did not address my justification for how I planned to use the last version of the page. I think the purpose I said I was going to use the page for was completely compliant with WP:User pages, and all our other policies, guidelines and conventions. For what it is worth I told the administrator in question that I was concerned that their emotions seemed to be too involved, and I requested them to take off their administrator hat when addressing concerns they have with material I have contributed. They have declined, even to the extent of declining to email me the last version of pages they deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting admin's comment. From 14 November 2008 until 3 November 2010, this was a totally unsourced page of allegations, including sections "conspiracy" and "aiding the enemy", which was at every moment a BLP G10 speedy deletion candidate. After I requested Geo Swan to delete the page (instead of doing so myself immediately, since he had asked me to give him a chance to clean up his user space himself), he changed the contents of the page completely, and added a comment that feigned ignorance: "It has been suggested that this page of notes does not comply with WP:User pages. I don't understand how it lapses from WP:User pages, and will ask the individual making this suggestion for a fuller explanation. " Considering that he had just removed all the previous contents of the page, this clearly indicates that he was, despite his claims to the contrary, extremely well aware of how the page "lapsed from WP:User pages", and more damning from WP:BLP. Anyway, the end result was a page with the BLP violating titel "Abdul Zahir charges", which was filled with negative "associations" in the forms of e.g. a redlink to Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans, The Nuclear Bomb of Islam, International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders, accountant for al Qaida, and the wonderful harmless but funny bluelink of photocopy machine. Fram (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I am concerned that this deletion is not firmly based in what WP:User pages says. I am concerned that this deletion is trying to apply a higher standard to userspace pages than we apply to actual articles -- which I suggest is in direct contrast to what WP:User pages says. WP:User pages says that contributors have always been allowed greater latitude in the basically non-public userspace pages than we allow in article space. Yet, when someone, or a group of people, have a policy-based concern about an article, or a portion of an article, and that concern is addressed, no one argues that the article should be deleted anyhow, because there was once a version that did not comply with policy. But, it seems to me that this is what the deleting admin is arguing. Any contributor who has a serious concern over a userspace page is entitled to raise that concern with the contributor who created that userspace page. I think WP:User pages informs contributors they should take the concerns of administrators more seriously. But I think if an administrator voices a concern, and that concern is addressed, they are not authorized to delete the page anyhow, because they didn′t want to see their concerns addressed, they were only prepared to accept the contributor deleting the page. The deleting admin did suggest I request deletion of this page. They did not, however say WHY they thought the page should be deleted. I looked at the page, in good faith. I made changes to the pages, in good faith. And, rather than telling me they still had concerns, or, better yet, explaining what those concerns were, the deleting admin simply deleted this page.
- I think the deleting admin's BLP concerns are open to question. As I understand it BLP is not intended to protect individuals from ever facing allegations, only to protect them from facing irresponsible, slanderous allegations that aren′t neutrally written, properly referenced, etc. I suggest that since an WP:RS did use these exact phrases in Abdul Zahir′s charge sheet it is not a BLP violation to list them, following a transwiki link to his charge sheet, on a user page.
- WRT to deleting admin's concerns over the redlinks... In addition to the redlinks the deleting admin mocked, it contained close to four dozen blue links to articles like the 1998 United States embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombings. The charge sheet tied Abdul Zahir to the conspiracy to effect those bombings. I suggest that considering including a reference to the wikisource document in articles like those two is completely reasonable. WRT to the redlinks, quoting from the charge sheet:
On or about May 29, 1998, Usama bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."
- I suggest that if Osama bin Laden really did issue a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam" that it is not unreasonable to consider whether we should have an article on that title. I think it is reasonable to consider this even if it was now widely believed he had not issued this statement, but sufficient RS had once asserted he did in sufficient detail to support an article, just as we cover the flat-earth theory, even though no one believes in the flat earth anymore. Having a redlink to a significant document does not merit uncollegial mockery.
- If I understand the deleting admin's comment they may be arguing that since they thought it lay within their authority to delete an earlier version of this page, they were still entitled to delete any subsequent versions of this page, even if their concerns had been addressed. Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You again do not understand my comment, no. I did not claim that only the earlier version of the page was BLPdeletable, the version I actually deleted was also speedy deletable. I have highlighted in my response to DGG below the most explicit parts of the BLP policy which were the reason for this deletion. My reference to the redlinks like "the nuclear bomb of Islam" have nothing to do with "uncollegial mockery", and everything to do with the reason this page wa deleted. Please consider for once that these deletions are not about you, but about the deleted pages. You state that "I suggest that if Osama bin Laden really did issue a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam" that it is not unreasonable to consider whether we should have an article on that title." Fine, no problem, but such consideration should not be posted in a page that is called Abdul Zahir charges, obviously. Fram (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that Geo Swan's claim "When the page was drawn to my attention I immediately transwikied it to wikisource." is false: the Wikisource page [6] did not only exist long before this deletion or before I noted the page on hus user talk, but even already a few minutes before the page on Wikipedia was created. This was simply a fork of a Wikisource page, violating BLP, as the deleted version, to a lesser extent, clearly still did. Fram (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore The basis of BLP policy is to do no harm, as well as the general principle of fairness. Supposing a person completely innocent of any hostile act were detained in Gitmo. In what possible sense can an article here citing the official allegations against him, however unfounded or mistaken, however excessive, do him harm, or be unfair to him? The harm that may have been done to him, the unfairness of his case, will not have come from Wikipedia. If anything, publicity may possibly help him. Consider someone actually guilty of war crimes, similarly detained and charged. Again, how is Wikipedia doing harm? . The deletion of articles like this is a perversion of BLP, the use of the BLP policy to harm someone and promote the unfairness to him. I find it really hard to imagine how anyone in this position would be other than helped by the publishing of the information of the charges. Those who think them heros will do so and continue acting accordingly ; those who think them innocent martyrs will do so, and continue acting accordingly, those who consider them guilty of horrible crimes will continue to do so, those who have hostile and malign prejudices against them will continue to have them. The Wikipedia article might possible do good, and can do no evil. I find it hard to understand the perspective of those who apply BLP to this situation--either they do not believe their own arguments, and actually wish to harm the people by hiding information, or they are seeing matters of good and evil in a way that I consider to have no positive correlation with reality or humanity. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments are not based in policy. We have an article, Abdul Zahir (Guantanamo Bay detainee 753), which presents the facts, all sides, a link to the wikisource material... Why do you tolerate a POVfork of this, a one-sided, incomplete, unsourced page of charges? We are not here to harm anyone, we are not here to help anyone either. We are not here to present only a portion of the facts, no matter which side is helped or hindered by this. We are here to write fair, balanced, neutral articles. Keeping only part of what is already in the main namespace lying around in user space is allowing POV forks, incomplete fake articles, and on a BLP to boot. DGG, as an admin, you should know our BLP policy, or reread it if you want to comment on and overturn a BLP deletion. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your arguments are not based on what the policy actually says, only on your interpretation of the "do no harm" principle. Have you read the "misuse of primary sources" section? Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Care to explain how the deletion of this page was not covered by the policy? Fram (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you are wikilawering by using literal reading of the wording to do an action contrary to the intent: the intent is "do no harm" — not "do no good". To explain, NPOV and V are the bases of encyclopedic article writing, but BLP is the one place at Wikipedia where there is firm consensus that we deviate slightly from literal NPOV by requiring stricter sourcing for one aspect of the material than the other. By themselves, NPOV & V mean that we cover the subject in a way that tells the truth from all aspects. Add BLP into it, and we tell the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth.(Some of us objected to this aspect of our BLP policy on exactly the grounds that it compromised NPOV, but the consensus was that we do make this compromise, essentially out of common decency. As I recall, Fram, you have argued very strongly for this.) We limit what we include so as to come as close to NPOV as possible, while still doing the least harm. In other words, we deliberately bias the coverage of materials on living individuals to avoid the possibility of harming their interests, except when it's a supervening matter of public interest, or their interests cannot be substantially harmed. (Fram, I think you agree with me so far.)
- What harms an individual, or, worse, harms an individually unfairly? Normally, our assumption is that it is information linking the individual to something disreputable, most particularly a crime, and very most particularly a crime that he has not been convicted of. This accounts well for all normal situations. There have been some situations where the BLPs have however accepted, (or even desired, and sometimes strongly promoted) publicity for their disreputable or criminal actions; either because they think their actions justified, or because they think that taken together with surrounding events it shows them in a good light overall; or because they think they have been persecuted and wish to draw attention to their situation. This has come up in various contexts, and it has been generally accepted that when adults accept or court publicity for the negative material in question, it is absurd for us to "protect" them from disclosure of it.
- In this particular instance , I do not think we know the explicit desires of the subject, but in essentially all known analogous cases of people detained at GITMO we do: they want publicity. Sometimes, they are proud of the deeds that are being called crimes. But almost always, they hope that disclosure of their case will lead to support for them and perhaps even to freedom. This can be proven by looking at who has sought since the opening of Gitmo to deny them publicity--the US Government, their accuser, and their enemy. The subjects of this group of articles have fought for years for some information to be provided of their situation, and the US government has persistently resisted providing more than the public opinion of the world--and some court decision--have forced them to provide. So what is to their interest? What does no harm? What might even do the subjects of these articles good? It is you, Fram, and those who share your position, who are the ones trying to use the rules meant to protect them to have the effect of harming them. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a novel one, wikilawyering by using the very explicit wording of the policy, even as it stands in the lead. DGG, you are wrong. The lead of the policy clearly explains that contentious material should be immediately removed, even if the material is positive. How do you rhyme this with your "the intent is "do no harm" — not "do no good". " So, no, when you end your first paragraph with "(Fram, I think you agree with me so far.)", I have already stopped analyzing yiour further TLDR arguments, as I don't even agree with your first sentences. If you would avoid things like "it has been generally accepted that when adults accept or court publicity for the negative material in question, it is absurd for us to "protect" them from disclosure of it.", which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, it would become easier to find your actual arguments why the policy doesn't apply in this case. All I read in your reply is that it is good for this BLP to have a onesided POVfork where all kinds of terrorism-related terms are linked to his name, since this may be a good thing for him. Even if you are right about the outcome of this BLPviolating POVfork, it is still an unacceptable article-like use of the userspace. If you feel that our coverage of this person is not fair, balanced, BLPcompliant, then go and change the article we have on him, but don't support policy-violating pages with your very one-sided cherrypicking of the spirit of the policy. Fram (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you are selectively quoting the policy. I consider the US reporting as endorsed by Brookings a reliable source for the accusations against him. The reason I do not edit the articles is that dealing with this material while maintaining a NPOV is an excessive emotional burden for me. I respect Geo for being able to do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "sekectively quoting"? I am quoting the relevant portions of the policy, yes, I can hardly duplicate the whole policy here. And the page had no "endorsement by Brookings", it was a one-sided list of allegations, which was reduced in the final, deleted version, to a "selective quoting" of some terms, many of them extremely negative. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Users don't get to keep their favorite versions of articles in userspace, especially if it is a forked, POV hitpiece on an actual person. Didn't a whole shitpile of Geo Swan's sub-pages come through MfD recently? If this is the kind of tripe that is down there, then this BLP-violating behavior should become blockable at some point soon. I'm a bit taken aback that DGG has set his "keep everything" mindset above simple WP:BLP policy, too. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see various strands and nuances to this, but let's begin with the easy bit. I ask myself first: If Fram felt our BLP policies were being violated, was he within his rights to summarily delete this content out of Geo Swan's userspace? And surely he was. Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines treat anything related to BLPs like toxic waste, and admins have very wide latitude to perform arbitrary deletions on BLP grounds. This does include userspace.
I ask myself second: Did Fram genuinely feel that our BLP policies were violated in this case? Surely he did. Fram's firm and forceful self-justification above are quite convincing and I can only conclude he was acting in good faith. With those two facts established I can only endorse the deletion. And that's everything that DRV should have to say on the matter. The rest is partly a dispute between DGG and Fram about how our policy should be interpreted—a discussion that should continue, and one in which I can see both sides but agree more closely with DGG—and a discussion between Fram and Geo Swan that should have happened on their talk pages before the DRV was opened. I want to end by saying to Geo Swan: The lesson here is, don't keep anything pertaining to living people in userspace. At all. I think our current rules on BLPs have completely jumped the shark, but they are our rules and DRV has to enforce them. Everything I have about living people is in the form of text documents on my USB flash drive and will be uploaded to Wikipedia only in the form of finished articles in the mainspace, and I recommend this to everyone who's interested in working on the subject. And I also want to end by saying to Fram that first, after this is endorsed, you probably shouldn't delete anything else out of Geo Swan's userspace because you're no longer uninvolved; and second, while I've endorsed your actions, I think there might be learning points for you about talk page behaviour. When dealing with good faith editors (as Geo Swan and DGG are) who have a genuinely different view from you, it helps defuse the situation if you use less of the emphatic declarative and spend a bit more time asking questions.—S Marshall T/C 09:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly am I no longer uninvolved? Is every admin allowed one administrative action against edits by another user before he becomes involved with that user? Editors routinely object to their content being deleted or being put up for deletion. If that means that in such cases, the admin who deleted things, or the eeditor who nominated things, is an involved editor wrt to the editor of who some edits were targeted, then you give basically free reign to any editor to remove one by one all admins from his edits. Considering the vast, vast amount of problematic pages Geo Swan had and still has, I believe that by this interpretation of "involved" we run the risk of running out of admins before we run out of pages by Geo Swan that should be deleted... Fram (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the amount of conflict that I can see between you and Geo Swan is quite high. I just think it should be left to cool off and another administrator should handle future deletions from Geo Swan's userspace. Yes, I do realise that we're desperately short of admins but DRV can't really solve that.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only conflict I see is Geo Swan objecting to deletions, and casting aspersions on my motives for doing this. I will not let such a tactic work. The only argument Geo Swan has is that I continue to delete some pages and to nominate a lot of others for deletion. Since those are regular actions, open to scrutiny (like here), and without an underlying content reason for them (i.e. I have no stake in the Guantanamo articles, and don't let my deletions or nominations be guided by a preference for any side in the situation), and since they are not part of a pattern of anti-Geo Swan editing (I have not interfered in ant other articles he is working on, or in other discussions he may or may not have), I have no reason to stop doing my job as an admin. If I would become aware that other admins are scrutinizing his user space as well and that the problematic pages would just as soon go away without my intervention, I would gladly stop browsing his userspace. But I will not ignore the rather massive amount of problematic BLP articles in his userspace because he doesn't like what I am doing. Fram (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's up to you. I've endorsed your deletion and expressed my view, and it's your choice whether to listen to me.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, both for the endorsement and the view. I honestly don't believe that I am involved (in the way usually used on Wikipedia: obviously I am involved with the deletions), but it is clear that some people disagree, which is allright. It's just that I wuold hope that certainly Geo Swan, who first made these claims, would provide some diffs to support this. It would make it easier for me to understand why they claim I am involved, and to believe that it is not just shorthand for "I don't like what you are doing". 12:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really about that; it's not about who's objectively right. It's about how editors feel. You see, it's not enough that we do the right thing, we have to be seen to do the right thing. We have to show FairProcess to our contributors. If you look at what Geo Swan's saying, you'll see real feelings there. This isn't an excuse or a tactic. Geo Swan genuinely feels that he's not being treated fairly. And in this collaborative project that's not okay. Geo Swan needs to go away from this DRV knowing that he's had a fair hearing and that if Fram deletes any more material from his userspace, we will examine that deletion thoroughly and properly.
If I had to put my finger on the main thing that bothers me about this, Fram, it's that you and Geo Swan aren't listening to each other. You ask each other questions but they're rhetorical; both sides are completely sure they're right and both sides seem to have exhausted the assumption of good faith. In those circumstances I would not feel comfortable with a closure of this DRV that lets you think you have carte blanche to clean out Geo Swan's userspace. I think another admin should do that, starting with a dialogue.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the outcome of this DRV, I know that I don't have carte blanche on his (or ayone's) user space. I speedy delete only a small minority of the pages I check, and nominate a few more for deletion, and let the majority alone, as many of them are either utterly harmless or potentially useful. They may need revisiting in six months or a year time, but I have no plans to go on a massive deletion spree. Fram (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, that's reassuring. Your earlier mention of a "massive amount of problematic BLP articles in his userspace" had me quite concerned that you might mean to remove them all.—S Marshall T/C 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I consider both Fram and myself to have excessive involvment to take admin action regarding this material or involving Geo or each other. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But with respect to my "keep all " ideology as charged by Tarc, that is a falsehood, as demonstrated by my admin log--I have deleted about 11,000 articles since I came here, mostly speedies and expired prods, but including AfD closures. I have not kept track of my AfD votes, but I think the ration is about 3 keep : 1 delete : 1 other. This is not a "keep all" ideology. (If I were to !vote on every AfD my !votes would be about 1:2:1, because I see no need to pile on, and only vote where there's a real dispute & I have an opinion, or when I have something special to say. Most articles sent to AfD are, as they should be, deleted without much controversy. I would like a retraction for what I consider slander. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no honest or good-faith rationale for ever wishing to retain an attack page directed at a living person, as you did here. This is disgraceful. My comment stands. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the initial clause is self-evident, I think it also self-evident that DGG does not consider this an attack page. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I question the basic competence of one who considers it otherwise. Tarc (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already explained in sufficient detail, but for anyone joining this discussion now, I summarize: calling it an attack page is a perverse use of legalism. An attack page is a page whose purpose is to attack, rather than present a NPOV view. That is not the intent or the effect of the Wikipedia page. Judging whether something is an attack page makes use of the principle of BLP, to do no harm. Having this page does him no harm, and may even do him good, but that second part is just a supplementary comment. I doubt anyone could find any scenario by which it does harm to him. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Couldn't this be settled by some uninvolved admin giving Geo Swan a copy of the page before deletion, and he could set up his link page, which is not a violation of BLP? I personally think Fram drastically overreacted - Geo Swan is a very strong and knowledgeable editor in the context of Guantanamo-related articles, and it is natural that he will need research aids in his own, non-indexed user space, which will include things like, say, transcripts and annotated copies of official documents. To delete these and disrupt his work is not in any way helpful to Wikipedia. RayTalk 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He has a copy of the page at Wikisource, no need for another copy of the same page. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:User pages says, in several places, that, traditionally, good faith contributors are granted considerable leeway in userspace. How is the version of the page you deleted more useful to me than the version at wikisource? Spelling out the absolutely obvious, wikisource is a whole other wiki. Unlike the wikilinks within a wiki cross-wiki links (1) are not bidirectional; (2) they don't render in red if the target is non-existent; (3) the "what links here" button does not work on cross-wikilinks; (4) cross-wiki links cannot be added to our watchlists. I believe I already explained that I planned to review the links on the list. If they were bluelinks, consider whether those articles would be improved by a reference to the wikisourced document. If they were redlinks, consider whether there were other references sufficient to support starting a new, neutrally written, policy compliant article on that topic. Given that WP:User pages says good faith contributors are granted considerable leeway in userspace, given that I have done considerable work in this area, and that I have a long record as a good faith contributor, if you cannot substantiate a genuine policy concern, I would appreciate an explanation for why you are npt prepared to simply defer to my assurance that I do think the page will be useful to me.
- If you want to know how I think a page will be useful because you have a genuine interest in also working on these topics, I'll be happy to go into more detail. Geo Swan (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn the deletion, but do not restore the material to en.wiki
- I've reviewed the revisions of the document in question. It does not appear to be an attack page. It represents itself as a copy of an indictment. While such a source is clearly more appropriate for Wikisource, it is not an attack page per se. The fact that it was NOINDEX'ed at the time this took place lends further weight to DGG's observation that it is not an attack page.
- Failing to email the page to the user in such circumstances would be inappropriate. I'm not sure whether or not that has happened to date, so I have emailed Geo Swan the most complete version of the page, which he can subsequently upload to Wikisource or another appropriate venue.
- I echo RayAYang: Fram drastically overreacted. BLP is not a license for admins to seek and destroy content we disagree with in other user's userspaces. The article was NOINDEXed, and the most questionable content had apparently been hidden in the revision history before the deletion occurred. An MfD nomination would have been appropriate, a conversation with Geo Swan about why a Wikisource document was here on en.wiki would have been appropriate, and even tagging the article with {{db-attack}} would have been appropriate, since I believe Fram acted in good faith, though incorrectly. I would consider Fram an INVOLVED administrator in all future interactions with Geo Swan, and encourage Fram to adopt this position as well. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I won't. No one has yet shown how I am involved, only that they feel that a page that links Abul Zahir with Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans, The Nuclear Bomb of Islam, International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders, accountant for al Qaida (all of this in the final, deleted version of the page) is not a BLP violation or a negative unsourced page, needs a crash course in our BLP policy. Your other comments show that you haven't followed the discussion and the history of what happened at all (e.g. mailing the page to Geo Swan, who had had it at Wikisource years ago already, is a futile and unnecessary action), making it hard for me to take any conclusion you make serious. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fram, didnt you use the edit summary "Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation." in this comment... I accept, at face value, that you honestly do not recognize how comment like this one compromises the appearance that your subsequent exercises of administrator authority were made objectively, on their merits. Nevertheless numerous administrators have indicated to you, both here, and on your talk page, that they think you should consider that your objectivity is compromised. If I am not mistaken some of those administrators have explicitly informed you they believe your objectivity has been compromised. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh yes, the "involved admin" approach. This is a fun tactic of the Israeli-Palestine topic area, the global warming area, and no doubt countless other hot-button places around the project; Administrator A intervenes with User B, disagreements ensue, B declares "you're now too involved with me to be impartial!" to A, to bring te admin actions to a halt. I find this tactic to be quite deplorable, honestly. If Fram had had past involvement with you in regards to all these articles or somewhere in the subject area....says you were opposing sides in talk page debates, XfDs, etc...then yea, I'd buy the "involved admin claim. But that does not appear to be the case here (unless you have evidence to the contrary). Rather, this admin has approached the matter from an administrative point-of-view, taking action to what he believes to be editing and policy violations on your part by starting the deletion process aganst a bulk of your user-space files. The "involved" card simply doesn't carry weight here, IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion our administrators should try not to lose their cool. In my opinion administrators who have obviously lost their cool should recuse themselves. FWIW administrators who havent lost their cool, but who let slip a careless comment that gives the appearance they have lost their cool should also recuse themselves, because it is damaging to the project to have administrator powers exercised by someone who has lost the appearance of fairness and objectivity. And, FWIW, I wish we could count on all administrators who are capable of masking that they have lost their cool to recuse themselves from threads once they realized they had lost their cool.
So, yes, in your example, if Administrator A has lost their cool, they should recuse themselves. Period. If administrator A realizes they are emotionally involved, but feels, nevertheless, that there is a substantive policy issue at stake, and that the normal mechanisms available to all wikipedians are too slow, they can always request a previously uninvolved administrator to look in. And, if I am not mistaken, this is what the administrator′s guidebook suggests. Geo Swan (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, everyone should try to remain cool. But when User B essentially goads Administrator A into such action with a massive WP:IDHT campaign into order to declare "you're involved, now go away", that's just not gonna fly. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not emotionally involved, I have changed the positive idea I have about most editors (AGF) to a neutral one for you (ANF, not ABF), and look at your edits and pages from a policy point of view, without bothering to look for your cooperation in cleaning up the mess. If you do cooperate, no problem, if you don't, no problem either. I don't care about how you feel one way or the other, I care about getting BLP violations off Wikipedia. But it seems that some people are more concerned about their relations with other editors than with maintaining our policies. This is a worrying trend. Fram (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fram, you have asserted, elsewhere, that I have asserted you are acting in bad faith. On the contrary, I accept, at face value, that you honestly think that all your recent activities are consistent with your obligations as a wikipedian and an administrator. But let's do a reality check. Please consider the timing of your comment of your comments and your actions. You deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges two minutes after you wrote, "Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation."
- I am going to repeat this: You deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges two minutes after you wrote, "Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation."
- I accept, at face value, that you don't understand how this frankly stunning comment, followed two minutes later by this deletion, gives the appearance not of neutrality but of an act triggered by strong emotion.
- User:Tarc, who seems to be in writing to support your right to react emotionally, when you feel provoked, seems to be suggesting that I provoked you, brought on your emotional reaction, by "goading" you. I believe what the record shows however is that
- You suggested, on November 2nd, that I consider requesting the deletion of 13 userspace pages. Please note, your suggestion did not offer a single reason why I should request deletion of these pages.
- Over the next day or so I looked at all 13 of those pages, and considered your suggestion. I do my best to take my time and consider every good faith question or concern voiced about my contribution on its merits, and offer a civil, meaningful reply.
- For three or four of those pages, after having them drawn to my attention, I agreed that requesting deletion was in order, and I did request deletion.
- I honestly couldn't see which policy, guideline or convention other pages lapsed from. I left what I believe were civil and responsible notes at the top of those pages, stating that unstated concerns had been expressed about the page, that the nature of the concern wasn't apparent to me, and I was going to ask the concerned wikipedian (ie you) for a fuller explanation. I started a table, summarizing my thinking about each of these pages.
- You read my summary, and it triggered what I continue to regard as a highly uncollegial reply, followed almost immediately by a deletion that continues to seem to me to be triggered by anger -- seriously misplaced and inappropriate anger.
- So, contrary to any suggestions you or Tarc have made, I wasn't willfully defying a properly issued directive from someone exercising administrator authority, as deputized to them by the community, as per a wikipedia, policy, guideline or convention. First, in your suggestion of November 2nd you did not identify yourself as a wikipedia administrator. Second, you did not state or hint that although your suggestion was phrased as a suggestion, I should regard it as carrying the weight of a directive from a wikipedia administrator. Third you provided no explanation as to the nature of your concern over those pages.
I think ordinary wikipedians are entitled to know when a comment is not just a comment from a fellow wikipedian, but when they should recognize it as carrying the weight of a wikipedia administrator. I think that if a wikipedia administrator directs an ordinary contributor to do something, like request deletion of an article, image, or userspace page, the ordinary contributor is entitled to be informed of what policy, guideline or convention justifies that directive. This is not just common courtesy, this is essential for the wikipedia to function properly. No good faith contributor wants to be unknowingly repeat good faith mistakes, that are nevertheless mistakes. If, for the sake of argument, I am making a series of good faith mistakes, I think the entire community is entitled to admonish the administrator who notices an instance of a good faith contributor making a good faith mistake, who can't be bothered to explain why they think it is a mistake. That administrator is not just wasting the time of the good faith contributor. The good faith contributor's time is likely to be wasted through making the same mistake in future. And the time of other good faith contributors, who notice those future mistakes.. So, please don't state or imply that I was acting in bad faith, or ignoring a properly formed and exlained directive from an adminstrator when you neither identified yourself or explained yourself in your suggestion. Fram, I have written this in other recent discussions, I believe you are using an interpretation of our policies, particularly of WP:User pages, that is not supported by what WP:User pages actually says. As I have written before, when someone raises a policy based concern over an actual article, a policy concern that is generally recognized as valid, we keep that article if that policy concern is adequately addressed. Even if the concern had been unaddressed for so long that the concern wikipedian nominates the article for deletion, we keep the article if the community decides the concern has been addressed. A significant fraction of {{afd}}s include comments like: "I would have voiced a delete for the version of this article, at nomination, but since it has been fixed, I voice a keep." Or "I voiced a delete opinion initially, but, given the new references/reformatting since then, I am striking that and changing to a keep.". You seem to be saying that any userspace page I started, that had a version that you thought was deletable, should be deleted, even if your deletion justification was no longer valid. WP:User pages says contributors have traditionally been granted considerable leeway in userspace. So why would you apply a higher standard to those pages than we require in article space? The main defense you have offered of your deletion is that the page was unsourced. However I think you and I both know that the version you deleted on November 4th was sourced. In the interests of honest, open and transparent decision making, I request you acknowledge this was inaccurate and that the version you deleted was sourced. Would you have been authorized to delete, on sight, the version of November 2nd, on the grounds it was unsourced? I dunno. Maybe. I am willing to accept that this is an interpretation of our policies that some administrators would endorse. However, I think just about any administrator who had deleted the page, on the basis of it being unsourced, would have restored it immediately once they were provided a URL to one of the WP:RS that contained the source. For this reason alone I strongly suspect most administrators would skip the drama of deleting a page, on the basis of it being unsourced, when it seemed very likely the missing source was a good faith mistake, easily correctable after a very brief web search. You have also claimed that both the version of November 2nd, and the version of November 4th, did not comply with BLP, because they repeated charges against Abdul Zahir. Well, with regard to the version of November 2nd -- could we not quote from Abdul Zahir's charge sheet, in article space? I know there are some who interpret BLP in an extreme way, and assert we should never repeat allegations that haven't been proven in a court of law. Following that interpretation our article on OJ Simpson couldn't say he was suspected of murdering his wife and her friend. Our article on Richard Jewell couldn't say he was suspected of planting the bomb he found. Now, maybe I am mistaken, but if we can quote something in article space, good faith contributors should be able to quote from it in userspace. With regard to the version of November 4th, which was basically a list of about four dozen phrases from the charge sheet -- your representation of that list of phrases as "charges" shows bias, on your part. That list also included, Military Order of November 13, 2001, Kart-E-Parwan Province, U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Bagram Air Base, Gardez Air Base. These clearly aren't charges. Lots of US journalists, diplomats, aid workers and GIs have visited Karti Parwan, and the airbases and embassy. Wikilinks that tied those Americans to those locations aren't charges. The list also included the names of about two dozen individuals. Those names aren't charges either. I am pretty familiar with who US intelligence considers an enemy, yet I recognized just three of those names -- Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and Abdul Hadi al Iraqi. If you check the "what links here" for OBL you will see that being tied by a wikilink to a terrorist does not make one a terrorist. The first three individuals I see when I click on OBL's "what links here" are OBL's main enemy in Afghanistan, a US President, who is also an enemy, and a US Congressman. Wikilink are not charges. Readers may wonder why an article or page links somewhere. Readers may follow a link, may read the page or article at the other end of that link. And that may lead them to conclude the information on the other end of the link suggests two individuals were allies -- or enemies. You have suggested that the name, itself, of this page is a BLP violation, because it includes the word "charges". Please, renaming pages is trivial. I suggest that a concern so easily addressed should never be offered as a justification for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tarc, my counsel is not based on the mere existence of administrative actions, but their lack of objective reasonableness. Anyone can make a call in an area and not be involved. That Fram did so, has heard other people tell him he overreacted, and continues to maintain his correctness indicates that he should not personally exercise administrative powers in future, similar situations. Good faith, in this case, is not incompatible with poor judgment. When in doubt, an admin receiving such a message should feel free to continue monitoring things, but notify another admin--any other admin--and give them the rationale for the desired administrative action, such that the second admin acts as a sanity check. Fram, please feel free to consult me for such a sanity check in the future. Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One must also consider the source of said counsel, and how much weight to give it. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn the deletion -- echoing the reasons given by Jclemens. Writing as someone who's frequently disagreed with GeoSwan, I'll say that he's the last person I would ever accuse of doing an attack page. This is really a case of someone getting all his ducks in a row before putting something in an article. I'm astounded that it could be deleted without a second thought. -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G10 is for attack pages and negative unsourced BLPs. How hard is that to understand? I have deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim for the exact same reason. I hope that such pages would make you reconsider your opinion of Geo Swan, as he is well capable of letting unsourced negative BLPs lay around for years in his userspace. Fram (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've seriously deleted another page out of Geo Swan's userspace while this DRV is still in progress? I'm not convinced that was the wisest of moves.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, more than one. I've always reported them to Geo Swan on his talk page. Apart from not being happy that I did the deletion, can you find any fault in that (or the other) speedy deletions I did last week? Perhaps it is time that someone indicated to Geo Swan that instead of attacking the messenger, he should go through his user space and remove all potential BLP problems himself. If he doesn't clean up his mess, someone else has to do it, and no one has volunteered so far. Fram (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse -- Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTANARCHY + WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND + WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY + WP:IDHT. -- IQinn (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
