Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
I believe that the way Warren has handled this AfD may be a criterion for a Speedy KeepSee: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" Basically as you can see from the history of the article, he rewrote and deleted most of my content. The history is: 1. He did a bold edit that removed most of the article. 2. I reverted the edit, pointed out that the material he deleted was backed up with citations, and should be discussed first on the talk page 3. He deleted it again. 4. I then gave up working on the article as you are recommended to do in an edit war and attempted discussion in the talk page. He joined in the discussion but continued to work on it in the main space during the edit war. 5. The discussion was unproductive. No other editor apart from Warren has worked on it except one editor who suggested a sentence for the lead section in the talk page, and bots and editors correcting typos, and other editors adding pov and editorial comment tags. As a result I consider it as still in the middle of an edit war. I am unable to work on it in the main space because Warren would immediately delete or revert my edits. For that reason I worked on it in my user space instead. Whether that is right or not, it can't be denied that it is still an edit war situation and that I am unable to work on the article to improve its chances for survival of AfD. I have just now tried a reversion to the state it was in before the edit war began so I can work on it, but Warren has already said on the talk page that he will revert and keep reverting my edits, so I don't expect this to last long. See his comment in Revert Robert's reversion : " I will re-revert again to the point where I'm banned from Wikipedia. That's how much I strongly feel that "your" article is way over the top. ". That has also been the general tone of the entire discussion to date, and the reason I feel I can't work on the article in main space myself, and why I consider it to be still in the middle of an extended edit war. In those circumstances I believe a speedy keep may be appropriate. An AfD would be appropriate if I am permitted to work on the article first without edit warring. Especially since the warring editor is the one proposing deletion. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
Well, it's been over a week now. The tally is 70% in favor of VASTLY paring down the article, and merging what's left into the main MSR article. The argument is that the article as it currently exists is a WP:POVFORK, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority, virtually fringe POV. Of the votes to keep, one is from the author and sole editor of the article: he argues that (1) the topic is notable enough to warrant a nearly 16,000 word article containing 109 references; (2) an "Objective NPOV" is not appropriate for the article because it contains an ethical dimension; (3) the article is NPOV because all of the many POVs are presented. The other (reluctant) keep argues that (1) the article should be kept at least temporarily because the AfD is an inappropriate attempt to settle a dispute between two editors; and (2) deleting the article would amount to WP:CENSORSHIP. To these good faith arguments, the majority view would respond that (1) the mere fact of a long-standing editorial dispute does entail that the AfD was not made in good faith for good reasons; (2) there are only 2 relevant POVs here: (a) the mainstream view that MSR as proposed by NASA is safe because appropriate precautions will be undertaken; (b) a minority POV that MSR as proposed by NASA represents a potential existential threat to Planet Earth; (3) the proposed merge is not censorship because the main MSR article still mentions the minority POV. Whereas we note that the only notable proponents of the latter POV are the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (whose members are notable mainly for their fringe scientific views) [2] and the author of the article [1]. Therefore, we feel that a 16,000 word explication gives undue weight to what is, in our opinion, a virtually fringe POV, and that a brief mention in the main MSR article is more than adequate. In addition, we note that there already exists an ancillary article on ICAMSR. The minority POV is probably best explored in that article; as an analogy, an article on the dispute over Flat Earth theory would give undue weight to a minority POV, whereas an article on the Flat Earth Society is appropriate. Therefore, IMHO the WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS seems to be that: (1) a vastly pared down version of the article be merged with the Mars sample return mission main article; (2) more detailed content on the minority POV expressed by ICAMSR be merged with the ICAMSR ancillary article; and (3) that the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return be deleted with a redirect to International Committee Against Mars Sample Return. Warren Platts ( talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
I believe that the way Warren has handled this AfD may be a criterion for a Speedy KeepSee: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" Basically as you can see from the history of the article, he rewrote and deleted most of my content. The history is: 1. He did a bold edit that removed most of the article. 2. I reverted the edit, pointed out that the material he deleted was backed up with citations, and should be discussed first on the talk page 3. He deleted it again. 4. I then gave up working on the article as you are recommended to do in an edit war and attempted discussion in the talk page. He joined in the discussion but continued to work on it in the main space during the edit war. 5. The discussion was unproductive. No other editor apart from Warren has worked on it except one editor who suggested a sentence for the lead section in the talk page, and bots and editors correcting typos, and other editors adding pov and editorial comment tags. As a result I consider it as still in the middle of an edit war. I am unable to work on it in the main space because Warren would immediately delete or revert my edits. For that reason I worked on it in my user space instead. Whether that is right or not, it can't be denied that it is still an edit war situation and that I am unable to work on the article to improve its chances for survival of AfD. I have just now tried a reversion to the state it was in before the edit war began so I can work on it, but Warren has already said on the talk page that he will revert and keep reverting my edits, so I don't expect this to last long. See his comment in Revert Robert's reversion : " I will re-revert again to the point where I'm banned from Wikipedia. That's how much I strongly feel that "your" article is way over the top. ". That has also been the general tone of the entire discussion to date, and the reason I feel I can't work on the article in main space myself, and why I consider it to be still in the middle of an extended edit war. In those circumstances I believe a speedy keep may be appropriate. An AfD would be appropriate if I am permitted to work on the article first without edit warring. Especially since the warring editor is the one proposing deletion. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
Well, it's been over a week now. The tally is 70% in favor of VASTLY paring down the article, and merging what's left into the main MSR article. The argument is that the article as it currently exists is a WP:POVFORK, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority, virtually fringe POV. Of the votes to keep, one is from the author and sole editor of the article: he argues that (1) the topic is notable enough to warrant a nearly 16,000 word article containing 109 references; (2) an "Objective NPOV" is not appropriate for the article because it contains an ethical dimension; (3) the article is NPOV because all of the many POVs are presented. The other (reluctant) keep argues that (1) the article should be kept at least temporarily because the AfD is an inappropriate attempt to settle a dispute between two editors; and (2) deleting the article would amount to WP:CENSORSHIP. To these good faith arguments, the majority view would respond that (1) the mere fact of a long-standing editorial dispute does entail that the AfD was not made in good faith for good reasons; (2) there are only 2 relevant POVs here: (a) the mainstream view that MSR as proposed by NASA is safe because appropriate precautions will be undertaken; (b) a minority POV that MSR as proposed by NASA represents a potential existential threat to Planet Earth; (3) the proposed merge is not censorship because the main MSR article still mentions the minority POV. Whereas we note that the only notable proponents of the latter POV are the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (whose members are notable mainly for their fringe scientific views) [2] and the author of the article [1]. Therefore, we feel that a 16,000 word explication gives undue weight to what is, in our opinion, a virtually fringe POV, and that a brief mention in the main MSR article is more than adequate. In addition, we note that there already exists an ancillary article on ICAMSR. The minority POV is probably best explored in that article; as an analogy, an article on the dispute over Flat Earth theory would give undue weight to a minority POV, whereas an article on the Flat Earth Society is appropriate. Therefore, IMHO the WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS seems to be that: (1) a vastly pared down version of the article be merged with the Mars sample return mission main article; (2) more detailed content on the minority POV expressed by ICAMSR be merged with the ICAMSR ancillary article; and (3) that the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return be deleted with a redirect to International Committee Against Mars Sample Return. Warren Platts ( talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
|