|
User:Pulsifer (edit | [[Talk:User:Pulsifer|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)
The deleted material was the first draft of a new article that was being composed in the user's own space, as suggested by the wikipedia developer's guide. The page was deleted almost immediately after it was created. The material was all factual, well-sourced and had a neutral POV. It provides factual information about a topic that has been extensively covered in the news. The administrator who deleted the page did not cite any policy or reason for the immediate deletion of a page that is actively being drafted in user's own space. This would however appear to be a violation of the wikipedia policies. The delete log is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=chrislk02&page=user%3Apulsifer&year=&month=-1. Further discussion appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_review_of_userspace_deletion_regarding_Sarah_Palin Pulsifer (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undo deletion. Editors can work in a sandbox or userspace to draft an article. After it was completed and put in mainspace it could then be AFDed if it was not up to Wikipedia's standard. We should follow regular Wikipedia procedure. Editors have every right to create new articles. QuackGuru 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an elaborate attempt to prove two points by inference: (1) that the Alaskan Independent Party is a subversive organization, and that (2) Palin supports that subversion. All this despite that lack of any evidence that (1) Palin had very much to do with the organization and that (2) the AIP or AKIP or whatever has violated any laws. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As deleting admin. The userpage article was an attempt to create a fork of material that was declined to be inserted into the Sarah Palin article. The content made some fairly intense assertions based on questionable sources. The fact is if the content was not suitable for inclusion in the article, circumventing the process by creating a userspace copy (that will obviously not be copied to the mainspace) is just trying to push the point. I am trying avoid usage of BLP but I think this is a potential example. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the content on the deleted page is very similar to multiple attemps by pulsifer to enter this material into the main Sarah Palin article. FOr example [1] and several other attemps. Each time it is a bit different or rearranged but the same point. It has been removed by multiple editors. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BPL policy specifically states: "In some cases users may wish to consider drafting a proposed article in their user space and seek discussion at WP:DRV.". The material Chrislk02 deleted was compliant with that policy. He has not articulated a valid basis for deleting draft material in a user's own space. Pulsifer (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping stuff like that in your subpage, knowing it hasn't a prayer of being approved due to BLP concerns, is against the rules. You could always keep it in a notepad document on your PC until you've got it the way you think it would have a prayer - then propose it on the talk page and see what happens. And I assure you, if it doesn't refute the two concerns I raised above, it will be rejected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both above delete comments has nothing to do with Wikipedia procedure. The article was not finished yet and was not in mainspace. There was improvements being made. You can AFD it once it is in mainspace. Let's do this right. Editors can work on a draft. Once it is in mainspace then we can debate the merits of it. A draft or sandbox should be encouraged on Wikipedia. A draft is a great way to improvement articles. QuackGuru 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if it's inflammatory, BLP-violating material. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No claim had been made that that the material is inflammatory or defamatory, so the point you have just made does not apply. Pulsifer (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly had been, you were simply ignoring it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is a BLP concern here, which there is, it doesn't matter where it is. The Wikimedia foundation can still be held liable, and there is too much media attention on this subject to risk leaving this up, anywhere. If someone wants to write an article and not have it deleted, take it somewhere else or even offline. Anywhere but our servers, thanks. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Aquatique, in order to material to be defamatory, it must be factually incorrect. Please state what item in the material was factually incorrect and I will be happy to correct it.
- An answer as weaselly as the material you're trying to push, which is why it's unacceptable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseball Bugs: there is no need for those types of uncivil statements, particularly in regard to what I said, which I will repeat: if there is a BPL violation, I will be happy to address it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are guilty of McCarthyistic tactics with this stuff you're trying to push, so don't go lecturing me about things. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I striked your blockworthy comments. QuackGuru 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The user's sole purpose in posting this stuff is to demonstrate guilt by association. That's McCarthyism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you are not an admin, and you are out of bounds modifying others' comments. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, these types of uncivil comments are uncalled for. If the wikipedia admins believe it is appropriate to start questioning motives and intention, then I will be happy to defend both my motives and question yours. But there is no reason to go down that route. If you believe there is a BPL violation by the draft material in my user space that is sufficient to merit its immediate deletion, then please state what it is. Pulsifer (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to modifying someone else's comments. If I made a change that modified someone's comments, then it was either inadvertent or due to an editing conflict. Pulsifer (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not you. It was QuackGuru. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn BLP concerns over Palin, a (very) public person and a public servant? Come on. Even if this is disinformation purposefully spread by her political opponents, there's no reason not to cover it, in context an respecting NPOV, as part of the overall coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign. Of course the inclusion of this info into any article may be challenged and is not in any way guaranteed, but there is no harm in allowing a contributor to work on a draft to present for future consideration. The McCarthy comparison is a stretch, there's no way you can equate an obscure Alaskan secession movement to the political stigma associated with the prospect of communist subversion so prominent in 1950's cold war theatrics. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse/keep deleted. Per WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Seems cut and dried to me. --Kbdank71 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is amazing the moving target that is being presented here. The material was not only fully sourced, NONE OF THE FACTS STATED ARE IN DISPUTE. Pulsifer (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the fact of why you're pushing it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop making these inappropriate comments. Pulsifer (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guilt by association is what it's about. You're the one that needs to stop it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are rude and should stop now. QuackGuru 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is blatantly POV-pushing and it is he who should stop now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The user already knows that his thesis is going to be rejected for the reasons stated above. He is violating the rules, and several have told him so. He needs to stop it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Pulsifer is clearly aware that the material was rejected on the talk page of the article where he originally tried to add the material, and just trying an end run by keeping it in User space or trying to fork it to a seperate article doesn't change the BLP violation. Corvus cornixtalk 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misrepresenting the situation. Improvements to the text were being made. QuackGuru 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misrepresenting the situation. The user's purpose is to prove a point through inference - guilt by association - McCarthyistic tactics. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please stop. QuackGuru 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. The thesis itself is bogus. It is an attempt to claim that Palin believes in the secession of Alaska, and hence that she's guilty of sedition or treason. That's what it's about. There is no other reason for pushing this stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your not making any sense. What specific sentence was a BLP problem? QuackGuru 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Corvus cornix: There was no consensus on including the material or on not including it. Even if there were, consensus can change. There was also no BPL violation, nor was one cited as the reason for the deletion. The use of user space to draft an article is not only permitted, it is encouraged, and the deletion of a draft article in user space is a clear violation of wikipedia procedures. Pulsifer (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, have you even read WP:BLP? I'll quote it again just in case: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. What you want to add is contentious, it's questionable, and it doesn't matter where you were writing it, it will be removed immediately, even from user pages. Consensus isn't needed to remove it. --Kbdank71 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, what specifically was your WP:BLP problem? QuackGuru 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete. Negative material about a public figure that was adequately sourced does not fail BLP. & national major news coverage is adequate sourcing. That is may be wrong or misleading does not matter if the sourcing is sufficient. Even if "contentious", or "questionable," we include it, with appropriate quotation and attribution. Verifiability, not truth, applies to blp also. Our job is not to judge the ultimate validity of charges. DGG (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no we don't. There are all kinds of things that don't get included into politicians' articles, sourced or not, due to undue WP:WEIGHT. Every single sourced item about a person doesn't get put into an article, even if they aren't politicians. See WP:COATRACK. Corvus cornixtalk 05:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- quite true. But I don't see the relevance here. It would make an interesting discussion on the talk page whether this issue was major enough. I have no idea whatthe conclusion would be, but it shouldnt be settled by admin fiat. DGG (talk)
- I do not see see any specific objections to the text and improvements were being made. QuackGuru 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read Baseball Bugs's comments above? Corvus cornixtalk 05:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I read it. QuackGuru 05:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Negative material about a public figure..." That's your statement of the reason for including this information, so now we're getting somewhere, as you admit that the purpose is to include a presumed negative about Sarah Palin. Now you need to explain why it's a negative - tell us a law that the AIP has broken or is alleged to have broken. Tell me where Palin has specifically supported anything alleged to be illegal. Don't talk about her showing up at meetings. That's McCarthyism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseball Bugs: You are repeately violating WP:AGF by questioning the motives of the editor. I would be happy to both defend my motives and question yours, but that is both irrelevant and inappropriate. The only issue is the material itself. Please restrict your comments to the material. You yourself have stated that the factual correctness in not in question, and that is all you need to say. There is no basis for deleting a draft article in user space that contains well-sourced, factually correct information. Pulsifer (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a clue what your actual motives are, I can only go by the material you're trying to push, which is an attempt to lead the reader to a false conclusion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Content violated WP:BLP by making controversial assertions about Todd Palin, a living person, based on sources that are not reliable (a website called tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com and a Youtube clip, among others). Sandstein 08:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandstein: the importance of the reliability of the sources is to ensure that the material is factually accurate. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE MATERIAL IS FACTUALLY ACCURATE. That not withstanding, I am happy to change the sourcing to the NY Times, the Washington Post or other sources. Pulsifer (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen many cases where technically correct individual facts are strung together in such a way as to draw the reader to a false conclusion. That's what you're up to here, and that's why your essay can't be allowed in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AfD where this discussion belongs. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you mean WP:MFD, AFAIK userpages are not AFD'ed.— Ѕandahl ♥ 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that place. Thanks for the correction! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse We don't use user pages for qestionable forks of controversial articles wherepotential BLP vios can be hosted through the back door. Since there is an existing article teh contributor should be seeking consensus on the talk page for edits not working up their own version of the article somewhere outside the attention of the community. Good deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Soundly justified, the substantive material is nothing but a WP:BLP violation. I wouldn't object to restoring the first version; it was harmless - but it was onyl around for an hour, so I doubt the user really ever wanted that. GRBerry 02:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. A major point of user space is to serve as a sandbox for articles that do not yet satisfy Wikipedia inclusion standards. Give them a while to work on the article, and if it becomes obvious that no work is being done/it has no chance of ever surviving as an article, send it to MfD. Palin is a (very) public figure, so the argument that the whole article would constitute a BLP violation is unconvincing. If particular claims are unsupported, they can be excised without deleting the whole page. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The material in the userspace was a copy of material that had been removed from the main article, and declined to be re-added after the BLP protection. There was nothing new or orignial. Also as has been stated MANY times before, the sources included a link to ABC blogs, you tube and some website tpc.muckracker or something like that. The content was extremley controversial and the sources were unreliable. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 23:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I trust DGG's assertion of adequate sourcing, and Pulsifer's statement that there is no accuracy dispute is unchallenged, perhaps even supported by Baseball Bugs' "Only the fact of why you're pushing it". This obviates any BLP concerns, and removes any reason for deletion. It is then a content issue for the talk page, not an administrative one.John Z (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This has been extensively discussed on the Palin talk page. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] —Travistalk 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and if the talk page was not deleted, why should this be?John Z (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Editors have every right to edit a sandbox on a subpage or a personal sandbox. It should be given a chance. After enough time has passed the sandbox can be blanked or deleted. This is normal practice on Wikipedia to have sandboxes. The Pulsifer's article creation was never given a chance. Pulsifer was in the beginning of making improvements. QuackGuru 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The content was mainly about Todd Palin, and made some pretty big insinuations based on unreliable sources. Pulsifer stated many times that he had reliable source, and even drafted copies on the sarah palin talk page. Pulsifer has a.) yet to provide reliable source (i.e. not tpc.muckracker.., youtube and ABC blogs). Pulsifer also failed to signify why the content about Todd palins involvement with the AIP was directly related to the BLP of Sarah Palin. Have you even read the material that was deleted as it has not yet been requested that it be undeleted. This is more than just a simple case of me randomly deciding to delete content from his userspace. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I explained before, improvements were being made, so that makes your argument irrelevant. QuackGuru 21:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How are you going to "improve" the bogus allegation that the Palins believe in Alaska secession? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would improve it by carefully following ONLY what reliable sources say. Of course, with the help from the Wikipedia community. QuackGuru 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless those reliable sources provide information that's actually relevant, such as a statement made by Palin either favorable or unfavorable to Alaskan secession, her alleged "connection" to this group is irrelevant, except to try to prove "guilt by association". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They have lifted the protection on the page today (the 8th) as per previous arbitrary decision. Let the POV-pushing resume! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I took a look and I see nothing worth a BLP-invoked deletion. The writing is not as balanced as it would need to be in an article, but that's an editorial question for proper evaluation of NPOV. Every (potentially) contentious claim is directly attributed to an exterior source (all WP:RS-appropriate or debatedly so). Undelete and let it be worked on. — Scientizzle 02:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that Sarah Palin does, in fact, endorse the secession of Alaska? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BB, I took no stance on the claims within the deleted revisions, just the sources. A "RS" (ABC blog) stated that AIP officials claimed then retracted that Palin was a member, but that her husband was a definite member. That's what the sources say, right? Therefore, such material is perfectly appropriate to consider for inclusion within a relevant article; editorial discretion weighing NPOV/NOR/UNDUE policy and any further adequate sources should determine if & how such information is ultimately included. In the mean time, working on said information in userspace seems reasonable (and work it needs--it's not unbiased in presentation). I just don't see how attributable claims regarding a public figure in this middling "scandal" necessitates a BLP deletion 93 minutes post-creation. If no further work is actually done, I would likely support an MfD. — Scientizzle 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that the specific "facts" themselves don't matter, only the user's attempt to infer that she supports Alaskan secession. Meanwhile, the article is no longer fully protected, so there's nothing stopping the user from trying to post it - other than the sure knowledge it will get shot down, which is why he's keeping it on a separate page, as a content fork. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you telling me blogs (even it is from a reliable site such as ABC) count as reliable sources? Blogs as far as I know are not reliable. Similarly, have you other than a brief overview of the material, reviewed the sources? youtube is cited as well as other sites that are unreliable. On top of this, it is a synthesis that uses many unreliable source to assert what bugs is saying. I find it hard to believe you have reviewed the content in depth if you are claiming it is cited by mainly reliable sources. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to MfD. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|