Content deleted Content added
ClaudioSantos (talk | contribs) |
ClaudioSantos (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
***Being the subject of an article doesn't exempt one from Wikipedia policies. He was blocked for using sockpuppets to remove well-sourced information, just as anyone would have been. Looking at the edits, it seems that it's possible that the reason for the removal is that his views have changed, but that's not the right way to go about it; if that's the cause of the dispute, the information should be recast in past rather than present, preferably with a reliable source (SPS would be okay here) indicating a change of view, rather than removed entirely. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
***Being the subject of an article doesn't exempt one from Wikipedia policies. He was blocked for using sockpuppets to remove well-sourced information, just as anyone would have been. Looking at the edits, it seems that it's possible that the reason for the removal is that his views have changed, but that's not the right way to go about it; if that's the cause of the dispute, the information should be recast in past rather than present, preferably with a reliable source (SPS would be okay here) indicating a change of view, rather than removed entirely. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
****The [[WP:BLP]] encourages the wikipedians to be patience and do not bite those subjects who comes feeling affected with the contents published about them in wikipedia. Even -let me cite- "the Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material". Actually also [[WP:BLP]] encourages those subjects and other users to aggresively delete contentious contents bad or poorly sourced. And it seems that he did not removed well sourced information but even some of that information was finally removed due based on dubious or wrong interpretation of the source (for example about his alleged positions about gays, his alleged activism used in order to disqualify his academic work as allegedely biased, etc.), and I also could add that a lot of information in the article is still Original Research or UNDUE weighted by cherry picking (for example although his academic work as historian is recognized as objective by the sources, currently those sources are used to pick up isolated phrases of criticism), in order to misrepresent the subject. If the subject is still dispossed to express his concerns at any rate he is not able to edit wikipedia without violating the indefinite block that was applied to him, which is entirely contrary to [[Wikipedia:BLPEDIT#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article]] and finally drove to this AfD. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" color="#ffffff" size="2"><span style="color:black; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:ClaudioSantos|<b><i>C</i></b>laudio<b><i>S</i></b>antos]][[User_talk:ClaudioSantos|¿<b><i>?</i></b> ]]</span></font> 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
****The [[WP:BLP]] encourages the wikipedians to be patience and do not bite those subjects who comes feeling affected with the contents published about them in wikipedia. Even -let me cite- "the Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material". Actually also [[WP:BLP]] encourages those subjects and other users to aggresively delete contentious contents bad or poorly sourced. And it seems that he did not removed well sourced information but even some of that information was finally removed due based on dubious or wrong interpretation of the source (for example about his alleged positions about gays, his alleged activism used in order to disqualify his academic work as allegedely biased, etc.), and I also could add that a lot of information in the article is still Original Research or UNDUE weighted by cherry picking (for example although his academic work as historian is recognized as objective by the sources, currently those sources are used to pick up isolated phrases of criticism), in order to misrepresent the subject. If the subject is still dispossed to express his concerns at any rate he is not able to edit wikipedia without violating the indefinite block that was applied to him, which is entirely contrary to [[Wikipedia:BLPEDIT#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article]] and finally drove to this AfD. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" color="#ffffff" size="2"><span style="color:black; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:ClaudioSantos|<b><i>C</i></b>laudio<b><i>S</i></b>antos]][[User_talk:ClaudioSantos|¿<b><i>?</i></b> ]]</span></font> 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
****PD: It should be noticed that all the controversial edits in Dowbiggin's article were made by the mentioned expulsed 9-sockpuppeteer ([[User:Jabbsworth]]) in order to misrepresent and discredit Dowbiggin's academic work as allegedelly biased and inaccurate (for example representing Dowbiggin as an alleged "biased"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460616656&oldid=460616171][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=320941454&oldid=320934318] through tagging him as a "catholic"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460623631&oldid=460622625][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=459120441&oldid=458147776][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=461245683&oldid=461238620] "conservative"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=440777490&oldid=440777196], "anti-gay"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460621090&oldid=460618947][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=461238620&oldid=461238505][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460622625&oldid=460618080] and "fringe" author, and even removing positive mentions on his work[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460363649&oldid=460326735]), and it was evidently a grotesque attempt to discredit and to remove Dowbiggin as a reliable source in other articles where Dowbiggin was being used as a source[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euthanasia#Bias]; for instance, see how this same 9-sockpuppeteer who edited the Dowbiggin article then removed contents in |
****PD: It should be noticed that all the controversial edits in Dowbiggin's article were made by the mentioned expulsed 9-sockpuppeteer ([[User:Jabbsworth]]) in order to misrepresent and discredit Dowbiggin's academic work as allegedelly biased and inaccurate (for example representing Dowbiggin as an alleged "biased"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460616656&oldid=460616171][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=320941454&oldid=320934318] through tagging him as a "catholic"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460623631&oldid=460622625][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=459120441&oldid=458147776][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=461245683&oldid=461238620] "conservative"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=440777490&oldid=440777196], "anti-gay"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460621090&oldid=460618947][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=461238620&oldid=461238505][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460622625&oldid=460618080] and "fringe" author, and even removing positive mentions on his work[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Dowbiggin&diff=460363649&oldid=460326735]), and it was evidently a grotesque attempt to discredit and to remove Dowbiggin as a reliable source in other articles where Dowbiggin was being used as a source[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euthanasia#Bias]; for instance, see how this same 9-sockpuppeteer who edited the Dowbiggin article then removed contents in another article which was sourced on Dowbiggin's hitorical work, claiming precisely this: ''"remove grotesque over-reliance on one conservative Catholic euthanasia opponent for fringe opinions linking euthanasia to Darwinism and eugenics" (sic!)''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euthanasia&diff=461384163&oldid=461382348]. The intentions and shape of those edits are evident and did drive to the reasonable protest of the subject. If that sort of edits contrary to [[WP:BLP]] are not removed, and until now there has not been any disposal to do so but to punish the subject complaints, then the article should be removed as the subject is asking for. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" color="#ffffff" size="2"><span style="color:black; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:ClaudioSantos|<b><i>C</i></b>laudio<b><i>S</i></b>antos]][[User_talk:ClaudioSantos|¿<b><i>?</i></b> ]]</span></font> 14:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:03, 25 January 2012
Ian Dowbiggin
- Ian Dowbiggin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination, per OTRS ticket ticket:2011102510018627: The subject of this article has contacted Wikipedia by email and claims the article contains inaccuracies and would like it considered for deletion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Point is that mr. Dowbigging is trying to sweep a few uncomfy but sourced things under the table. He used already a string of sockpuppets to achieve that, and now tries it by OTRS. How shall I say it: "An inconvenient truth". I am very unhappy about this attempt... Night of the Big Wind talk 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Mr. Dowbiggin is clearly notable and should have used the talkpage to discuss the part he is unhappy with. This is gaming the system. Night of the Big Wind talk 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Contentious contents dealing with living people, moreover when based on dubious sources and disputed by the subject, should be aggresively removed. Any user, included the own subject, are invited to do so, per WP:BLP. The onus probandi lies on those who are attempting to publish those contentious contents and they should first discuss and provide reliable sources before publishing anything, meanwhile those contents should not be included at all but removed. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Mr. Dowbiggin is clearly notable and should have used the talkpage to discuss the part he is unhappy with. This is gaming the system. Night of the Big Wind talk 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. He clearly passes WP:PROF#C3 by virtue of the FRSC. The article needs some care per WP:BLP (e.g. is lifesitenews reliable for this topic?) but does not seem overly biased one way or the other to me, and even if it were I don't see a case being made that deletion is the only possible cure. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:BLP. Actually, the ordinary procedures to deal with the so called "inaccuracies", have been clearly ineffective. Even it has been overlooked each recomendation to be patient with the people who claims to be affected with contentious contents, instead in this case the affected one, Dowbiggin, was promptly blocked accused of sockpuppetry and he was even entirely ignored, when he was clearly a non'wkipedian, not used with the wikipedia procedures but solely trying to warn about and to delete some contentious content against him. Contentious and surely false contents which finally were found to be unsourced and based on dubious sources[1]. Indeed contentious contents published by a real very disturbing sockpuppet (called User:Jabbsworth) who used 9-sockpuppets, who was recently blocked forever and who violated WP:BLP issues more than one time and the last time precisely so stubbornly attempted to circumvent the system by linking to an external link in order to publish some contents that the community found to be against the WP:BLP[2]. And it clearly seems that Dowbiggin was just one of his targets, whom the mentioned disturbing 9-sockpuppet attempted by all means to discredit due Dowbiggin's academic work and results are against his (of the mentioned disturbing 9-sockpuppet) agenda. Now, that Dowbiggin still raises again some concerns about the contents published about him, again it seems some wikipedians are still unable to seriously deal with them, but instead there have been raised here even more accusatory comments against the affected one, for example, accusing without any proof, that he is allegedely attempting to "sweep the truth." This is unacceptable. Per WP:BLP any contentious contents, like those raised by the subject, and based on dubious unreliable sources like in this case should be deleted, not responded with accusations and blocks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note It seems Dowbiggin feels that contents dealing with his positions and opinions are not well represented in the article, so it is absurd to give confidence and more weight to some dubious sources and OR-phrases built by an expulsed 9-sockpuppet (with a proved lack of disposal to stick to the BLP policies[3]), than to the own subject explanations, when dealing precisely with his own opinions and positions, if you'll forgive the repetition. To add that I clearly found some of the sources are very wrong represented, included some prominent cherry picking, phrases out of context, and OR absurd conclusions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't forget your own sockpuppets and your own topic ban for POV-pushing, mr. Santos. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- What has it to do with the topic? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- That you come up with a rant against somebody else while you are operating on the fringe of your topic ban. And you don't have a clean slate about sockpuppetry yourself, so don't start accusing others. Watch out for the boomerang... Night of the Big Wind talk 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not accusing anybody, the 9-sockpuppeteer was indeed found as such and expulsed. The references to this 9-sockpuppet has entirely to do with the topic due this user is the author of the contentious contents which drove to past BLP concerns and to the current AfD. Similar BLP concerns raised a other times around the edits made by this 9-sockpuppeteer, thus a context pertinent to the current AfD dealing precisely with the same concerns. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- That you come up with a rant against somebody else while you are operating on the fringe of your topic ban. And you don't have a clean slate about sockpuppetry yourself, so don't start accusing others. Watch out for the boomerang... Night of the Big Wind talk 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- What has it to do with the topic? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't forget your own sockpuppets and your own topic ban for POV-pushing, mr. Santos. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note It seems Dowbiggin feels that contents dealing with his positions and opinions are not well represented in the article, so it is absurd to give confidence and more weight to some dubious sources and OR-phrases built by an expulsed 9-sockpuppet (with a proved lack of disposal to stick to the BLP policies[3]), than to the own subject explanations, when dealing precisely with his own opinions and positions, if you'll forgive the repetition. To add that I clearly found some of the sources are very wrong represented, included some prominent cherry picking, phrases out of context, and OR absurd conclusions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note The article did not just have a few "inconvenient truths" - it seems to be quite clearly written with a POV against his positions, and thus needed noticeable pruning. I have tried to fairly represent his views without the internal argumentation which had been in the BLP, while not expunging criticism, and material which did not actually have biographical relevance, or which were adequately covered in fewer words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject's book list conclusively proves notability, for example his euthanasia book alone is held by ~1500 institutions. This discussion here is strictly about the notability of the subject and, consequently, the existence of the article. The complaints referred to above regard "merely" its content of the article and the interested eds should hopefully arrive at a version that is considered to be satisfactory and POV-free. Uncontroversial keep. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC).
- Note AfDs are not the place for personal attacks of any sort. Meanwhile, my attempt at bringing the article into proper compliance with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV was reverted with the edit summary: Please use the talkpage first as these alterations are controversial. Collect (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Lack of notability may be a common reason for bringing articles to AfD, but it's not the reason here; and in general a lack of notability is not the only reason why it might be better to delete an article than to keep it. I'm not a radical deletionist, but AfD is one of the cornerstones of quality control in en.wikipedia; reducing all AfD discussions to an assessment of only one attribute of an article, out of many possible attributes, is missing the point. bobrayner (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Which I hoped not to say, but it is clear that NPOV is not present in this article, and use of neutral wording is not supported there. Better to delete than face an uphill struggle to make it comport with policy. Collect (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. We don't delete clearly notable people just because they don't wish to be discussed on Wikipedia. That's one privilege that's reserved for borderline-notable people. But this guy is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a clear WP:PROF #3 pass on its own, and additionally his books have been reviewed in scholarly journals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The attempt to refactor contentious dubious contents were responded with blocking the subject due a technicism. Now the affected subject does not have any privilege except asking for deletion. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Being the subject of an article doesn't exempt one from Wikipedia policies. He was blocked for using sockpuppets to remove well-sourced information, just as anyone would have been. Looking at the edits, it seems that it's possible that the reason for the removal is that his views have changed, but that's not the right way to go about it; if that's the cause of the dispute, the information should be recast in past rather than present, preferably with a reliable source (SPS would be okay here) indicating a change of view, rather than removed entirely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The WP:BLP encourages the wikipedians to be patience and do not bite those subjects who comes feeling affected with the contents published about them in wikipedia. Even -let me cite- "the Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material". Actually also WP:BLP encourages those subjects and other users to aggresively delete contentious contents bad or poorly sourced. And it seems that he did not removed well sourced information but even some of that information was finally removed due based on dubious or wrong interpretation of the source (for example about his alleged positions about gays, his alleged activism used in order to disqualify his academic work as allegedely biased, etc.), and I also could add that a lot of information in the article is still Original Research or UNDUE weighted by cherry picking (for example although his academic work as historian is recognized as objective by the sources, currently those sources are used to pick up isolated phrases of criticism), in order to misrepresent the subject. If the subject is still dispossed to express his concerns at any rate he is not able to edit wikipedia without violating the indefinite block that was applied to him, which is entirely contrary to Wikipedia:BLPEDIT#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article and finally drove to this AfD. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- PD: It should be noticed that all the controversial edits in Dowbiggin's article were made by the mentioned expulsed 9-sockpuppeteer (User:Jabbsworth) in order to misrepresent and discredit Dowbiggin's academic work as allegedelly biased and inaccurate (for example representing Dowbiggin as an alleged "biased"[4][5] through tagging him as a "catholic"[6][7][8] "conservative"[9], "anti-gay"[10][11][12] and "fringe" author, and even removing positive mentions on his work[13]), and it was evidently a grotesque attempt to discredit and to remove Dowbiggin as a reliable source in other articles where Dowbiggin was being used as a source[14]; for instance, see how this same 9-sockpuppeteer who edited the Dowbiggin article then removed contents in another article which was sourced on Dowbiggin's hitorical work, claiming precisely this: "remove grotesque over-reliance on one conservative Catholic euthanasia opponent for fringe opinions linking euthanasia to Darwinism and eugenics" (sic!)[15]. The intentions and shape of those edits are evident and did drive to the reasonable protest of the subject. If that sort of edits contrary to WP:BLP are not removed, and until now there has not been any disposal to do so but to punish the subject complaints, then the article should be removed as the subject is asking for. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Being the subject of an article doesn't exempt one from Wikipedia policies. He was blocked for using sockpuppets to remove well-sourced information, just as anyone would have been. Looking at the edits, it seems that it's possible that the reason for the removal is that his views have changed, but that's not the right way to go about it; if that's the cause of the dispute, the information should be recast in past rather than present, preferably with a reliable source (SPS would be okay here) indicating a change of view, rather than removed entirely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The attempt to refactor contentious dubious contents were responded with blocking the subject due a technicism. Now the affected subject does not have any privilege except asking for deletion. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)