User talk:VoiceOfReason/TRUCE!!!

TRUCE!

This message is addressed to User:BenBurch and User:FAAFA, and also to User:Jinxmchue and User:Crockspot, and to everybody else who's been involved in this epic struggle between Left and Right that's lasted months now.

Please, all of you... please, can't we leave our politics at the door? There's more than enough squabbling and trolling going on in all three of the Underground boards, can't we have a Switzerland here? Can't we AGF and be CIVIL and make NPA? Unlike WP:BIO, the rationale behind the deletion of Andy Stephenson, these are policies, not guidelines. You do all know the difference, right?

I propose a truce on the following terms.

Both sides admit that injustices have been committed by both sides.
For example, Andy Stephenson should not have been deleted. There was certainly no consensus in favor of deletion... and the closing administrator erred in citing a guideline as the reason for deletion. According to a strict interpretation of the policies of Wikipedia, the article should not have been deleted.
Walter Andrew Stephenson should never have been created. (Was it you who created it, Ben?) If the Supreme Court makes a decision you don't like, you don't get to ignore it, not even if you're the President. The deletion of Andy Stephenson was brought to the highest court of appeal, and upheld. I disagreed with that decision, but recreating the article under a far less common name was a policy violation.
Neither should Conservative Underground have been deleted. Far less notable websites have been held by wide consensus to meet the guideline WP:WEB. With an Alexa rank in five figures, it shouldn't even be an issue.
WP:AGF has a corollary, which is that Wikipedia editors should act in good faith. People on both sides have not always done so.
Both sides have engaged in improper campaigning.
Both sides have overused user talk warning templates. It's debatable whether one side has overused them more, but the answer is irrelevant. Both sides have used warnings in retaliation as well.
The edit wars over Democratic Underground's External Link sections also became uncivil, with editors on both sides acting in bad faith.

I specifically say "both sides" rather than calling out names, because it's not my intention to point fingers. It's my intention to solve a problem, to fix a place where Wikipedia is broken.

I propose that we join hands and pay a visit to the Administrators. Tell them that we are agreed that both Andy Stephenson and Conservative Underground should be restored. And we should all pledge to fairly interpret the policy (laws) of Wikipedia and check our political views at the domain barrier.

I hope you all agree to this. Please comment here if you do.

I try very hard to leave my politics "at the door" here. I'm not perfect, obviously, and have had moments when I have been less than neutral. I will not (cannot) hide that and wouldn't ever try. Nor would I try to excuse it as I've seen others do.

Here are my thoughts on your points:

(1) I will not admit to what others have done themselves. I will not speak for them or say anything about their actions or alleged actions. I have tried to remain as neutral and civil as possible, though I will admit that it has been difficult at times due to certain people's words and actions.

(2) Andy Stephenson - I voted to keep the original article if it were to be improved by those fighting tooth and nail for it. Only one or maybe two people tried to improve it, and none of the people who were arguing so strongly about how important it was to have an article on the late Mr. Stephenson did anything. Additionally, I found the arguments for deletion far more convincing than the arguments against it as they were far more firmly based in Wiki policy. Because of these two things, when the article was deleted, I decided to support that deletion. What has transpired during and since the deletion review has only strengthened my support for its deletion. Certain people are on a vendetta and they will not rest until Wikipedia bows to their wishes and Wiki policy be damned in the process! Despite this, however, if Mr. Stephenson's notability can be firmly established (the HBO program may be a good start if it lives up to the promises people are making) and a well-written replacement article that follows Wiki policies is presented, I will support its inclusion on Wikipedia.

(3) It absolutely should not have been created. It merely was a recreation of the original article under a slightly different title with questionable references. It was not recreated verbatim (i.e. each and every word was copied exactly), but the original article obviously was heavily copied.

(4) I don't personally care one way or the other if CU has a Wiki article or not.

(5) That much is obvious, and with certain people, it's very easy to fail to assume good faith.

(6) Maybe, maybe not. I've not seen enough evidence.

(7) Dear Buddha, yes!

(8) I fail to see the relevance of bringing that up here. It's no longer an issue.

Wikipedia only gets "broken" when people use it improperly or when they become hostile and belligerent when they don't get their way. This is what needs to be dealt with first, else the truce will never come and the squabbling and trolling will continue unabated.

Finally, no, I do not agree that either of the articles should be restored for the reasons given here - primarily to help a proposed truce. They will simply become lightning rods for further conflicts. The real problem isn't articles. It's people, and given the comments made by some since all this began, it's obvious that the problem will not be resolved quickly or easily. Certain people's attitudes must change first and, quite frankly, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Possibly never. As I said, some of those involved are in no way interested in following Wiki policies. That is what must be dealt with one way or another before any progress can be made elsewhere. Jinxmchue 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is simply an outside perspective from someone who isn't in any way involved in in this (in fact the only way I'm even aware of this whole situation is because it occasionally boils over into AfD, which I watch fairly closely) and who has no preference for the Right or the Left; except in the case of handedness... Just a few observations:

Andy Stephenson was deleted because an admin made a judgment call based on the arguments advanced at the original AfD discussion, specifically that it did not meet WP:BIO guidelines (and from an outside view I don't see any evidence the subject meets said guideline. The admin used his judgement. You may disagree with this judgement, but articles are deleted every day becuase they don't meet guidelines. This is why deletion review exists.
Conservative Underground should not be restored unless someone has additional sources or evidence that establishes that it meets WP:WEB. Alexa ranking is completely irrelevant, as is Google hits, etc. Search Engine tests have never been accepted guidelines because they are totally unreliable.
A little WP:AGF and WP:COOL would probably benefit everyone on both sides. WP:NOT a soapbox and political fighting doesn't advance the project in any way. That said, I can understand why this is happening as the United States approaches what is probably a very important election.
If I can offer any advice it would be that you should make absolutely sure you understand the relevant article guidelines at Wikipedia. Before starting a article on a person, make sure they meet WP:BIO & WP:LIVING and that you have reliable, neutral sources to establish this. The same goes for websites; make sure they meet WP:WEB before you start an article. I'm not saying this will necessarily solve some of the POV issues that seem to be happening, but it would certainly prevent articles that have undergone a significant amount of editing from being deleted via AfD.--Isotope23 15:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Thanks for the input. I want to amplify a bit about my views on Andy Stephenson.

I've taken part in plenty of AfD discussions. There have been times when articles that I've felt should obviously be deleted have been kept, and times when articles that I've felt should obviously be kept have been deleted, but this is the only time I've ever initiated a deletion review. Why? Because I felt that process wasn't followed. I can check my politics at the door but not my ethics, and specifically I can't abandon my fervent appreciation for due process.

If an article is nominated for deletion on the grounds that it fails notability guidelines, an administrator's job is not to unilaterally judge whether it really does fail those guidelines. That's the community's job. WP:N is not a WP:CSD; the administrator's role in the AfD process is to judge rough consensus. That's difficult to do in a discussion where both sides make use of meatpuppets and engage in campaigning outside of Wikipedia, but even after attempting to cull the wheat from the chaff I do not see any consensus in favor of deletion of Andy Stephenson. That's why I initiated the review.

After the review process was followed, and the deletion was upheld, that should end the matter. I disagree with the outcome and believe that the review, like the original discussion, was tainted by bad faith efforts on both sides, but that's the way it is, which is why I believe that Walter Andrew Stephenson was properly deleted. VoiceOfReason 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to having my name dragged into this discussion. Of everyone mentioned here, I believe I have the most lengthy, varied, rich, and positive edit history, possibly of everyone else combined. Any "vote" I have made in AfD has been based on objective observations, and justified with WP policy guidelines. (I may have made a few cracks in further AfD discussions, but some people just make it too hard to resist.) Leave me out of your petty squabbles. I view this page as speedy deletable as an attack page (disparaging me), and am tagging it as such. - Crockspot 15:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thank you for the comments, and I'm sorry you feel that way. As I said, it's not my intention to point fingers at anyone. I mentioned you (and three others) not to accuse you but because you four have been at the forefront of these battles. VoiceOfReason 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not at the forefront of "these battles". When Ben came back to Wiki recently, I left him a nice welcome back note on his talk page, and I have not been involved in the talk page flame wars and warnings. I found the AfDs linked off of GabrielF's user space. I vote according to my observations, and the application of policy, and have disagreed more than once with the other "cabal" that I am supposedly a member of. Like I said, don't include me in your petty squabbles. Crockspot 18:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although not specifically invited, I see no basis for Andy being WP:Notable yet. If I notice an article appearing on him, and it's not speediable, I'll put it up for AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another uninvited comment: I'm appalled to learn that Conservative Underground was deleted. My personal opinion is that people are making fetishes of WP:BIO, WP:WEB, and other such guidelines (note: not policies, guidelines). Why should we waste all this time trying to excise articles? If Wikipedia has an article about a person or website of borderline notability, will that lower Robert McHenry's opinion of us? No, it won't -- he already thinks Wikipedia is trash. When people form their opinions about a political activist or a website, nobody is swayed by whether there's a Wikipedia article on the subject. I think the best way to deal with these problems would be for many AfD voters to become much more inclusive in their thinking. I've lately been trying to pay more attention to AfD, in reaction to what seemed to be a concerted right-wing push to delete articles on political grounds; but if Conservative Underground was deleted, maybe the problem is less sectarian than I thought. JamesMLane t c 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologize for "uninvited comments"; everybody who has an interest in this is invited to comment. I'd welcome as much discussion as possible.

The history of this debate stretches back -- way back. I first became aware of it when the AfD for Protest Warrior was brought to my attention, but I believe it began with the two nominations of Conservative Underground, the latter being successful. These were followed by retaliatory nominations against Ben Burch (successful) and The White Rose Society (website) (unsuccessful). Then there was a flurry of edit warring on Democratic Underground. And now this Stephenson kerfuffle... there may have been other skirmishes of which I'm not aware. All of these debates have been marked by heavy advertising and use of meatpuppets. In the case of the successful AfDs for both Conservative Underground and Andy Stephenson, it's questionable whether the closing admin accurately judged consensus.

I believe that both sides see themselves as having been wronged (correctly) and both sides see retaliation and continued warring as the only option (incorrectly). I would like nothing more than to see the hatchet buried for good. As I've stated in multiple AfDs, I have a strong bias towards keep when there is any controversy whatsoever about an article; when considering the effect of allowing a nonnotable subject to have an article vs. the effect of deleting an article on a notable subject, the balance of harms weighs clearly in favor of preferring not to delete articles. I'm enthusiastically in favor of deleting the fluffy garbage articles that are created hundreds of times each day, but if a number of people genuinely believe that a subject deserves an article, why not? What's the harm? Let Conservative Underground have an article, let Andy Stephenson have an article. Where's the skin off your nose? VoiceOfReason 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Underground's article was deleted before I ever saw it. While I challenged the deletion at the time, it was not until I asked to have it restored to my user space that I realized that it deserved to be deleted. (Deleted Version). I mean, honestly, who wouldn't vote delete in an AfD for that microstub? I have rewritten it (Current version in user space), but I don't think it meets the bar for any of the criteria of WP:WEB still. So basically, the article is in rough draft limbo until something breaks that makes it qualify. (It needs some sourcing still, and alot of the crap that is in it now probably needs to come out.) So don't expect to see a CU article in the main namespace any time real soon, at least not one that I have written. - Crockspot 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Crockspot, I think your article is sufficiently notable (keeping in mind, as many seem to have forgotten, that WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy) to deserve to be posted. I hope to see it soon. In the meantime, I'm working on "Underground" boards, which is nowhere near ready for prime time but I hope will be soon. VoiceOfReason 01:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]