-
Alan Cabal (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
restore)
Procedural nom. Page was deleted at AfD (
here), but re-written in userspace and then moved to mainspace. It was then deleted as a G4 recreation. The version of the page deleted at AFD is
here, and the new version is
here. I am neutral.
Black Kite 12:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Note - history-only undelete performed by request.
Black Kite 06:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion of 2 weeks ago. While the two versions Black Kite shows above are different, past iterations of this article have had all of the soruces in schmidt's current draft. They are passant, largely, ("garbled uplink is the guitarist and he loves to party"), and do nothing to establish him as notable and passing WP:BIO (no one disputes that he was once in a band or that he contributed frequently to the New York Press for a number of years -- it's just that those things on their own are insufficient to establish notability). As Cabal no longer is involved in anything notable (he builds stage sets, apparently; an IP who claims to be him always pops up at his AfD's) there is nothing "new" that would have or could have changed to enhance his notability. In short, the problem remains what it has been all along; there are no non-trivial works about him in any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability or otherwise support a reliably sourced and verifiable BLP.
Bali ultimate (
talk) 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse until such time as new sources are presented that represent significant independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources and support a claim to notability (the Jewish Press article that just quotes Cabal's email message to the editor doesn't really cut it, nor does someone writing about their own band which happened to include Cabal as a member).--
Michig (
talk) 13:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I would like to see detail of the additional sources that are claimed address the AFD issues. If
User:MichaelQSchmidt could supply the passages of text from the new sources that discuss Cabal it would help to see if there's any reason to believe these issues have been addressed. If this review results in the speedy being overturned and, inevitably, another AFD, I would suggest that if the subsequent AFD resulted in deletion, evidence of decent new sources be required before any subsequent recreation of the article. We've already wasted far too much time and effort on this article.--
Michig (
talk) 09:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- MQS was kind enough to supply the relevant passages of text from the sources for me to take a look at, and with all due respect to his efforts here, I still believe the deletion should not be overturned as the notability concerns have not in my view been addressed.--
Michig (
talk) 08:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Procedural Overturn Deletion as article was deleted AFTER the speedy tag was in good faith itself removed by an admin. The deleting admin must have at the very least run into an EC and realized the tag was removed and then read the reasons for it. Despite this, he deleted it anyway. So I support return to
NEW VERSION as an as an example of what any editor can do when looking beyond
WP:IDONTLIKEIT to actually dig for sources and present infornation properly when doing the required
WP:CLEANUP of an article thought meritless by others. Cabal is no angel and has far more detractors than admirers... hell, I don't like him myself... but personal animis toward a subject should have no place at an AfD nor at in bringing any article into line with policy and guideline to be then worthy of Wikipedia. Consensus can change with a neutral review of old and past articles, and whatever Cabal might be doing today or tomorrow or next year
does not diminish past notability, no matter how one might feel about the individual as a person. Yes, many facts in the present article are the same as facts in the earlier ones. World history does not change, nor can it be re-written, simply because one does not like events or those behind such events. Any properly encyclopedic article will then include as much properly sourced material as is relevent. So naturally, the only thing that then "could change" is in how the assertions of notability are presented and how they are sourced. Proper sourcing per
WP:RS and
WP:V and proper presentation of such is exactly as guideline and policy instruct.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Objection There was no edit conflict. Please stop making these accusations. I deleted in good faith, I had no idea that the speedy had been removed.
Dougweller (
talk) 14:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Objection noted, with my aplogies for my misunderstanding. He removed the tag in good faith after himself spending time reviewin the article just as had you. Because he finished his evaluation firts, does that mean it is of no consequence? The request for procedural reversal is still applicable. At Bali's ANI, you said "
Before the removal of the tag from my point of view - yes, technically the tag was removed just slightly before I deleted, but I was in the process of deletion when the tag was removed, the version I saw before I clicked delete had the tag. I looked at the old and new articles, I looked at the talk page, and made a judgement call. DRV is the way to go now and in my opinion would have been a better option than recreating it two weeks after the AfD." I do not indertand how if the tag was there, and you went to edit, and the tag was removed before you hit "submit", that there would not have been an edit conflict. Since the tag WAS removed before you deleted, and even you grant this, the events of you "missing" it being removed are moot. It was removed for cause before you deleted. That you missed is not germaine. Guideline and policy do not state that a removal of such tag in response to a hangon only counts if there is 60 minutes, 60 seconds, or 60 nano-seconds before someone wishes to delete per speedy. Then indicatingthat it should go to DRV does not acknowledge another admin's opinion that the artricle was substantially different enough from the one that was deleted to deserve a fair review. DRV is not the way to go as it acts to validate an error in action, however "well intentioned".
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- To be fair, there were seconds between the two edits - I removed the speedy and by the time the edit came up on my screen (on our incredibly slow network!) the article was red-linked; there was no way that the deleting admin could have seen my edit.
Black Kite 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- To be fair. Yes. I think it is safe to say that the two of you were reviewing the article at the same time. You reached different conclusions, and you in good faith removed the tag... seconds before he in good faith deleted the article. Is it established procedure to err on the side of deletion in all such cases? Or to hold an preliminary AfD before having to retry it at another AfD? I have not been able to find anything in guideline or policy that indicates that this later is the proper procedure, just as I have not been able to find other instances where the tag removal preceded a deletion by such a short margin. Had you been faster or he been slower by perhaps another 30 or 60 seconds... it would be a different story. Just how close were the timemarks?
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- cmt it's worth noting that schmidt, the article creator, removed an earlier speedy tag, which he well knows is against the process. Just since we're being such sticklers for "procedure." As it is, Black Kite and Dougweller were the two admins who looked at this. And judging by their comments here and elsewhere, they appear to be in agreement that DRV is the best venue.
Bali ultimate (
talk) 14:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment It is also worth noting that I was informed by bali after my own good faith (erronous) removal of the tag with the statement: "And do not remove speedy tags from pages that you created. Read the tag if you don't understand that's not allowed (though of course you should at this point)." I immediately explained my lack of knowledge and requested he return it as I had never removed one before. I did not take issue with his assumption that someone who had never done something of that nature should automatically somehow know that they should not. I certainly KNOW it NOW... and will take issue with any futher implication of bad faith such as made in the above statement "which he well knows is against the process"... when earlier he was specifically told in an aplogy that I did NOT know it as agaianst process. And again, all that is needed is to take a look at the timestamps of the two editors who were diligently evaluating the article. If Black Kite was the first to complete his evaluation and remove that tag... even if ny nano-seconds, honor would indicate that his removal be respected. If Dougweller was first in completing his evalauation then his deletion was per the book. If he was late, he was late. Period. Else I'd have to wonder if a decision to delete 3 seconds after one to keep is allowed.... maybe next time a delete will be accepted if made 3 minutes or 3 hours or 3 days after a decision to keep. If good faith is to be shown on all sides, they were nearly neck and neck in their evaluations of the article. Black Kite was faster. Is his good faith decision to remove the tag to now be discounted simply because his decision was reached sooner that of the deleting admin?? Anything resulting from this premature deletion is a result of that premature deletion. Procedural overturn of speedy and return of newer article IS the proper following of procedure. The rules do not exist so thay may be ignored when it suits one's purpose, do they?
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse the "new" version is slightly different than the AfD version, but isn't actually better (in fact it could be argued that it's actually a little worse as it's more "puffy" than the relatively lean AfD'd one) and it doesn't address the core issue here, which is notability. The bottom line is that this guy just plain hasn't gotten any more notable in the two weeks since the AfD, and no amount of rewriting and wrangling could fix that.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- But I believe different enough... as the earlier versions were poorly asserted and poorly sourced. What has changed is in how it is now presented... with 5 new sources, 2 of which were discussed at the most recent AfD but that had never previously been sources in the article. Same puzzle. Different pieces.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- First off, in my (and one other's opinion) the presentation is worse, more puffery and uncited stuff. But that doesn't really matter. No one argued delete because of poor presentation. They argued delete because reliable sources independent of the subject didn't establish him as notable. Cleanup? That's lipstick on a pig (a phrase we can safely use again).
Bali ultimate (
talk) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, the previous version had sources and presentation of assertions that did not meet the approval of editors at the last AfD.
THIS one is not
THAT one. This one has 5 new sources, 2 of which were brought up at the last AfD. The assertions are presented differently and in a manner that allows proper sourcing through
Reliable Sources and confirmation per
Verify to properly show the
Notability that the earlier versions failed to do. Thank you.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. There seems to be a common misconception that "cleaning up" can cure a subject of unnotability syndrome. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
yandman 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Using Cleanup to correct the flaws of earlier versions is what "cures". Poor article on am unfavorable subject = deletion. Better article on a unfavorable subject = deletion. Seems like a set of equations that cannot be countered.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment No reason to be re-hashing the decisions of previous AfD's. This DRV is about the speedy deletion of a recreated article that was "substantially" different (despite pre-concceptions) than its predecessors. If it is returned, it may likley be sent to AfD.... but its not an AfD that needs be overturned. Its the speedy deletion even after the tag had been removed by Black Kite (who is here remaining neutral)... THAT is the issue here, and the only required and valid reason to overturn. You want to discuss notability? Do it at an AfD of the new article. The Speedy was improper.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 14:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- commment i suppose reasonable people can disagree. To be clear -- the sourcing was not improved, notability was not established, and no new sources that discuss Alan Cabal were uncovered by you (or anyone else). The recreation was an end around on an AFD from two weeks ago that delivered a clear consensus for "delete."
Bali ultimate (
talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Thank you for your opinion. There are other opinions that the article was indeed substantially changed in format and style and that sourcing was (slightly) improved to make a (slightly) stronger case for the notability of Cabal. This is not the venue to argue about reasons why an earlier version was deleted or how the various concerns of the earlier AfDs might or might not have been addressed. The issue here is supposed to be solely about the overturning a slightly speedy speedy... as even the deleting admin noted that his closure followed immediately upon another admin's valid removal of the CSD tag. Rather than say "oops" and return the article, the second admin decided to let it go... to either DRV or oblivion. This in all good faith requires a procedural overturn. Go to AfD if it must, but the speedy was incorrect. That's the only issue here, not the merits of the article.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Correction I deleted an article that at the time I hit delete had a Speedy tag. I don't think you understand the way the software works. It takes me to another page that I then had to change slightly, it would be during that time period that the tag was removed. No edit conflict is created as I'm not editing the page.
Dougweller (
talk) 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I quoted your ANI statement above. I ask of any neutral admin with the ability to check, please see whose timestamp is first...
User:Dougweller's for deletion? or
User:Black Kite's for removing the speedy tag. Since both admins were at the same time revieiwing the article to evaluate and determine the validity or need for a CSD, the only fair and honorable thing to do would be to give the benefit of the doubt to whichever one completed their determination first. Whose timestanp is soonest?
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Just because I was first doesn't mean I was right! Admins aren't infalliable, and that's why I brought it here - to let the community decide.
Black Kite 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I grant that, and am sorry that you are now in this, as controversy is no way to be repaid for good faith on anyone's part. Did you bring here as a preliminary AfD? Or did you bring it here for a decision to be reached in regards the closeness to the two timestamps? Had you been a minute slower, or he a minute faster, it would be a none-issue.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I give up. You don't understand the software, you insist, wrongly since I wasn't editing the article, which I've already point out, that there must have been an edit conflict that I would have seen (thus not granting me good faith), and you evidently feel you need to have someone to blame and won't consider that it might have been better for you to take it to DRV in the first place rather than recreate an article so shortly after it had been deleted.
Dougweller (
talk) 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Perhaps I do not understand the software you use, but I do however understand that at nearly the same time as you were evalauating the article to determine if a CSD was vaild, another editor was himself making his own evaluation. I don't know which of you began their evaluation first... I only know which one finished first. I also know that if this stupid article is returned to mainspace it will be sent to AfD within seconds. I also realize that it will likely have 15-20 delete opinions posted with the first few seconds... all pretty much saying the same things being said above. But, and no matter repeated claims to the contrary, it is different enough to deserve a chance.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse behind all the
puff of the new article, there still isn't anything to demonstrate that he's actually
notable. There's no in depth discussion of him anywhere, only trivial mentions.
Them
From
Space 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Puffery is a negative essay recently created (January 19) which very premise lacks good faith: that editors are simply adding references to avoid deletion. Not surprisingly, this negative "puff" piece has been enthusiastically picked up by editors who delete.
- It is hard for me to believe that all 28 references are not notable, including a book, Time magazine, New York Times, Billboard, for all references, see:
User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article#References.
Ikip (
talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well a clear consensus was arrived at by the editors who participated in the AfD 2 weeks ago that they did not establish notability. No new sources that would have changed that consensus have come to light. Ssome of those sources you link to, by the way, don't mention him at all and are not remotely about him, like the Taibbi article
[1] or the Necomonicon book
[2]; others have barely passing mentions -- for instance, this one
[3] says "Internet bohemians and online celebrities, people with handles like "Mnemonic," "Razor" and "Garbled Uplink" went to a party. No further mention of "Garbled Uplink" or Cabal at all. Some, like the Jewish Press
[4] note that he sent them a mean email. Most are self-published or otherwise not independent of the source (the article about the defunct band by the band leader). There's nothing new here.
Bali ultimate (
talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Those wishing for an overturn must do more than assert that the reposted article differed significantly from the AfD'd version. The speedy is only demonstrably incorrect if the reposted version addressed the reasons for deletion (i.e. a lack of independent sources establishing notability). If a consensus is established to that effect, the article can be restored (and those who still wish to see it deleted may re-nominate it for AfD).
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I fully understand your statement, and had the revised article been sent to AfD, would be properly answering these questions about the differring interpretations of the 5 new sources. And with respects to the good faith of
User:Black Kite in his evaluation determining the revised article deserving that chance, feel inclined to now ask how many different ways the wording of a CSD tag is allowed to be interpreted? What is now being asked is a sort of
Double jeopardy, no? The same "trial" twice? I certainly cannot "announce" this discussion anywhere, else be involved in canvasing... and those who might have then had chance to see it at an AfD and opine do not even know it had come back. Independent sources HAVE indeed been brought to this discussion: The Jewish Press, Newsday article, 2 Billboard articles, two books: Our Gods Wear Spandex and Cyberville... but this is a venue I thought was intended for discussing the unusual events of the speedy deletion, and not one to discuss former versions of the new article. If I'm wrong, fine... but I have seen it many times repeated at DRVs that they are not the venue for rehasing an AfD... only for investigating the event of the deletion itself.
- If however, a preliminary AfD is to be held here, and to answer ThemFromSpace, in-depth discussions of the subject are found in the Cyberville article... pages 13, 20-21, 23, 32, 39, 114, 168, 212, 336 and a few other pages probably too that I didn't catch. In the
Newsday article he's mentioned several times in every paragraph. The Zundel controversy is in-depth too. So if this venue IS to be a preliminary AfD, I ask that some method similar to an AfD posting be put forward that can let interested editors know that the discussion is indeed taking place... because in looking at the AfDs for earlier versions, there certainly were other editors that felt the article worth keeping on Wiki. Might not their opinions be just as worthy as any other's here?
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore to new version of the article. Two admins looked at this article at essentially the same time and made judgments that were different, and both were made in good faith. I see no abuse of process here and the timing and tag removal issues are unimportant, as the core purpose of this DRV is to look at the article and decide if it was subject to a G4 deletion as recreated content, not to point fingers or to argue about timing. Also, this is the appropriate venue, not ANI. After comparing the two versions, I see sufficient differences
prima facie that support that it is not subject to a G4 speedy deletion. The content is clearly different, it's structured differently, there are way more references, 28 vs. 10, and there are more included bibliographic entries, and the word count is 535 vs. 2025 (new). It's very clearly a new and different version, the issues in the last AfD have been addressed, including RS relative to notability. The deletion thus fails G4 criteria. The author did not just rehash the same content with a few word changes as an end run around the last AfD. Any issues about notability, references, or other editorial concerns should be argued in a new AfD, if someone is so inclined. Bottom line: The new article is not a G4 recreation and should stand or fall on it's own merits. —
Becksguy (
talk) 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn per Becksguy. This is not a subject to speedy deletion. Massive numbers of references: 28.
Ikip (
talk) 21:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Question—Has any attempt been made to follow up the remark in the third AfD from the IP address purporting to be the article's subject? In cases of marginal notability like this one, maybe the subject's wishes should be taken into account. I am in no way suggesting that his attitude to Wikipedia stinks and we should give him an unflattering article just to piss him off. Because that would be quite wrong of me. So I haven't suggested it.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I tried to make it as neutral and balanced as possible. Trust that there is stuff online that paints him in an extremely unflattering light... but in being neutral, such invective had no place in a BLP, so it was left out. My work on it was as a personal challenge to see if even the worst article might be made suitable for wiki. I had thought I was successful.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Fair enough, Michael. Procedural relist because there was genuine confusion between administrators here, and it's not unreasonable to ask for it to be relisted under the circumstances.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Relist The article seems improved, both with respect to balance and to references. It deserves another discussion.
DGG (
talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Recreate, the admins didn't reach the same conclusion, so lets go with the same default result as a no consensus at AfD, keep. That said, this might have a hard a time in the inevitable AfD.
Usrnme h8er (
talk ·
contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse There still aren't any sources that address him in depth.
AniMate
talk 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn due to improvements, i.e. sufficiently notable for the paperless encyclopedia anybody can edit. Sincerely, --
A Nobody
My talk 01:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse latest AfD or keep deleted or endorse G4 speedy clarified
Flatscan (
talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC), depending on whether this is a deletion or recreation DRV. The new version is substantially longer, but I don't see convincing improvements with respect to the AfD closing rationale. Why didn't the article creator request recreation at DRV before moving to article space?
Flatscan (
talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Requesting recreation at DRV is common practice, and approval immunizes an article against
WP:CSD#G4.
Flatscan (
talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The newer article's creator saw the deleted as one lacking substance and scope and not itself being worthy of return. The newer article's creator then took the sorry state of the deleted article as a challange to instead create a properly balanced and neutral one so as to improve the project, adding information and sources not previously existing within the one that had earlier been deleted. The article's creator took special note of the timbre of the arguments used in the deletion AfD and did as much as possible to address the more salient objections. The author then today learned that his efforts to address those issues in the article and so improve the project were themselves for some reason
under extremely close scrutiny.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Cmt really? You are the "newer" article's "creator" (which has the same precise standard of sourcing as the last one). And this is what you, the "newer article's creator" wrote on the last AfD, which was 12-2 for delete -- "Keep Same reasonings and discussions as at the last AfD. Nothing has changed except perhaps interested editors do not realize it is once more on the block. No doubt it will be returned to a 4th or 5th AFD if there is another no consensus keep here. And I really do not wish to have to dredge up the sources offered from the last AfD, but will if it is absolutely required. And yes, I was notified about this discussion, but the article is already on my watch list."
[5]. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bali ultimate (
talk •
contribs) 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- (Response to unsigned statement) Did I say I was not the author of the new article? Simply responded in 3rd person felt correct at that moment. ANd thank you for underscoring my impresion that some wish to use this venue as an AfD and not a DRV.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn On the basis that there was a disagreement over whether it was a speedy candidate.
ChildofMidnight (
talk) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
below account community banned
User:Manhattan Samurai sock; usually his edits are removed. For some reason, other editors want it to remain.
*Overturn For a guy who's supposedly of "insufficient notoriety" for Wikipedia inclusion, Mr. Cabal has ginned up quite the ongoing debate. What's really striking is that his name is now one of the only RED entries in a number of Wikipedia entries that cite him, e.g.
CounterPunch;
Gonzo journalism; and
New York Press. I'm also not seeing why Cabal is less important than say,
Jeff Koyen;
Toby Young;
Christopher X. Brodeur;
John Birmingham; or
Tucker Max, the latter entry which started as a self-promotion tool back in 2004, fully two years before the subject was of note for anything. Additionally, blog entries are used for thousands of Wiki references, including many of those I just cited, but for some reason, not allowed for Cabal. Seems like mucho double standards for the Cabal entry.
Jarmancooper (
talk) 05:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)—
Jarmancooper (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- Blocked as sock of community banned
User:Manhattan Samurai.
Bali ultimate (
talk) 14:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- May I please have a link to the checkuser case that implicates Manhattan Samurai? Thank you.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- He's not proven to be a sock at the moment, so I've removed the strikeout on the comment—it is
possible that this is an experienced IP editor who's just registered an account. Though I do understand the suspicion.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- And i've restruck. Take it up with blocking admin if you don't like it. I will not allow MS to disrupt this (particularly after this was recreated substantially unchanged 2 weeks after an AFD went 12-2 against this, and which was littered with his socks.
Bali ultimate (
talk) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- And I've unstruck again. The SPA tag is sufficient.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont 07:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- ? There are others here and elsewhere who have quite politely disagreed with you... others who recognize that it is substantially different. Their opinions are just as worthy as yours. Thank you for the continued good faith responses.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 07:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
Assume good faith extends to people who disagree with you. Actually, that's probably the most important aspect of assuming good faith here. I've noticed you've thrown the phrase around here alot in this debate, seemingly exclusively to those who you perceive to be agreeing with you, with the notable exception above. I'm sure Bali ultimate is assuming good faith but he also realizes that assuming good faith doesn't mean we can't use our brains to point out the obvious. I just hope that you were sincere when you thanked him for assuming good faith.
AniMate
talk 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Indeed. Bali Ultimate has been the epitome of courtesy and respect.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 09:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for recognizing that Bali ultimate is both courteous and respectful. When we treat those with whom we disagree with good faith, Wikipedia works. I'm sure you understand why many of us are wary of a new user making their first comment here after everything with
Manhattan Samurai and his socks. This whole mess really isn't too big of a deal, as single purpose accounts who show up only to express opinions in contentious debates aren't given that much weight. Still, thank you for being sincere and assuming good faith in regards to Bali ultimate. Your sincere attitude is to be commended.
AniMate
talk 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I asked the blocking admin for the block reason in the absence of any checkuser evidence and was told "See the
duck test". I replied "Sorry, and with respects, I think Wikipedia would need to see a few just a couple more feathers to presume it is a quacker from one specific individual... meaning that Wikipedia might wish to see more than just one edit to make a specific allegation that the account is one any one specific individual, as there are thousands of banned or blocked users that meet the same "test". Now certainly the comments of a SPA account will be generally be discounted, and certainly Manhattan Samurai has a puppet history... but if the SPA is not a puppet of MS, he has been blocked for simply making one edit and voicing one opinion, I would recommend he/she come forward and request an unblock. If it is MS, a checkuser can make such determination. But if it is not.... well, somebody got blocked who might not deserve to have been... simply for voicing an opinion in a rather civil manner. Any checkuser's or admins wish to opine?
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Michael Q: Thanks for pressing on. You're doing the right thing, not only by this entry, but thousands of others. And no, I'm not a sock of Manhattan Chowder, et. al. or a meat puppet, or whatever (the list seems endless these days). I made a valid point, backed it up with several facts, and instead of dealing with the point, Bali and GG--who've apparently both been after this entry for a long time--decided to violate "WP:Block Conflicts of interest -- Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." So I'm blocked -- using the "Like a duck" rule (is this now standard WP?) -- because I spoke up against an insidious practice that has become one of several fundamental and almost tragicomic inequities in this once free and open place: The attack of particular entries for reasons that, while they may be valid in some cases, are not consistently applied, and often seem more related to an editor's ego, personal issues and ability to rally powerful pseudonyms to his or her cause than the desire to objectively disseminate the truth. A sympathizer sent me another example:
Tim Folger, asking eight months after its creation, why isn't it being rewritten, deleted, etc.? I don't know. I can't answer. The WP guides are so innumerable and so confusing anymore it's completely discouraging. I used to edit here and I really used to enjoy this place. I thought the Wales vision was as socially and encyclopedically ingenious as it was technologically disruptive. But I've lost my taste for it. "The Encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?" Unless, of course, you're a sock, a meat, a blocked, a banned, a spa, an urban samurai, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Who is this slogan kidding? Wikipedia is an incredible tool, but it is slowly and inexorably being corrupted, by the very forces it set out to eradicate. If that's the voice of a disruptive sock speaking, then so be it. I'd like to think I deserve the "Emperor, You're Naked" Barnstar, but this is not an environment given to self-examination and that's precisely what is slowly killing it.
Jarmancooper2 (
talk) 05:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
>
- To Jarmancooper/Jarmancooper2: Now you are definitely showing yourself as a sock... I don't believe it has been proven of Manhattan Samurai, but a sock of someone none-the-less. If you wish to appeal the block, there are procedures to follow. Creating another sock as a voice is not the way to proceed, and will doubtless result in continued blocks of the new accounts.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn (perhaps relist). The article had additional sources that weren't in the previous version. That means an attempt was made to address the concerns expressed at AFD. Such articles do not fall under the G4 speedy deletion criterion. -
Mgm|
(talk) 07:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I wil be content with whatever the community decides about this article and probably won't take part in an AfD if that follows. Just in case there is any confusion still about the tagging debate, I should point out that the only relevance is that another Admin, perhaps correctly, thought it was not a G4 candidate. Articles don't need tags to be speedy deleted.
Dougweller (
talk) 08:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Fully endorse there is no reason to overturn the deletion of this non-notables biography, despite the obvious socking.
Verbal
chat 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- relist I think it's unlikely to be kept at AfD, but I don't think it is a speedy candidate as it is significantly different.
Hobit (
talk) 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn for procedural reasons. The speedy was declined by
Black Kite (
talk ·
contribs) and per deletion policy, another admin should not overrule it. If they do it by mistake, they should restore it when realizing their mistake. Whether the article itself is worthy of inclusion is not the subject of this DRV but of an AFD that can be started afterwards. This DRV is about the G4 speedy deletion and that should be overturned on grounds of respecting another admin's decision. All comments about whether this article is G4 or is not are void because it was already declined by the time of deletion. Everything else would allow forum-shopping and wheel-warring between admins who disagree with each others decisions and any other outcome here would effectively set a precedent for future conflicts when two admins reach different conclusions about a speedy candidate. I'm assuming dougweller acted in good faith but once he knew about the previous decline, he should have restored the article and use other ways of deletion instead. Regards
So
Why 13:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- This DRV isn't really about the speedy, though. Even though I declined the speedy, I brought it here (which is where it should probably have been to begin with) for the community to decide whether the re-creation was correct. Otherwise, the article would probably have been AfDd again anyway.
Black Kite 22:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well, DRV is about whether deletions were correct, not recreations. While I understand your motivations, I'd say you decided that it was okay to recreate when you declined the G4 speedy. After all, the decision behind declining an G4 is usually "this article is not substantially the same that was AFDed, so the AFD consensus cannot be applied". The only thing this DRV can decide is whether the deletion afterwards was correct, because DRV is not AFD2. If the new article should be kept or not is something a new AFD has to decide, that has no place at a DRV imho. Regards
So
Why 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Once again - 'deletion afterwards' could easily suggest that I was aware that while I was deleting the article another Admin was declining the Speedy, which is not what happened. Once again, the actions were virtually simultaneous, and as I probably initiated the deletion before the speedy was removed, even if the software only finished it afterwards, there could equally be an argument just as wrong that the deletion came before the decline. Neither is correct, they happened at what was to all intents and purposes the same time, going through two distinctly different software processes.
Dougweller (
talk) 06:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm sorry, I did not want to imply this. I used "afterwards" in the sense only that by the time you deleted, Black Kite had declined it. Whether you were aware of it or not, I cannot judge so I'm assuming you were not. My point is solely that imho you should have restored it once you became aware of this conflict simply because the first admin decision recorded in the logs about the page should count, not the latter. It's a purely procedural point, I know, but it helps to make clear that the first admin's decision should not be overruled, not even accidentally. Regards
So
Why 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks. I think by the time I realised what had happened, things had progressed to DRV and others had commented. Even then it didn't occur to me to undelete - I assumed that since the DRV had been initiated, that was what should happen. I still think that a DRV should have taken place before the article was recreated only 2 weeks after an AfD. What I do wish is that I'd never seen it! Of course, there still almost certainly would have been an AfD as soon as the speedy was removed.
Dougweller (
talk) 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Response There is no wheel-warring. There was a virtually simultaneous set of actions, where I initiated a deletion of a tagged article but by the time I had finished the process the tag had been removed. There has been no disagreement in the sense of one of us seeing the other's actions and then taking a contrary action. If Black Kite had asked me at the time I would probably have undeleted it, but that did not happen and he took it to DRV instead. Because of that, I'm leaving it to the community to decide. I'm not sure why, given the number of people who have endorse the deletion, you think I should now unilaterally ignore them, Black Kites's actions and the DRV and make a decision myself.
Dougweller (
talk) 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Dougweller is correct, there is no wheel-warring. I don't see the slightest hint of anything but full good faith actions by either admin. This is a case of different judgment calls made virtually simultaneously. —
Becksguy (
talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion. The fundamental flaws that led to the deletion are still present, and shifting the words around doesn't protect it from the {{
db-repost}} criteria. --
CalendarWatcher (
talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The new article grew (from the old version to the new version) from roughly 535 to 2025 words, an increase of almost 4 times, the number of references grew from 10 to 28, an increase of almost 3 times, and there is more structure now, from 1 section to 3 sections in the body. The article is obviously and clearly substantially different and has addressed the issues raised at AFD3. To characterize the change as "shifting the words around" is grossly unfair and also clearly untrue on it's face. Regardless of any other changes, just shifting the words around would result in an article of about the same size. I did a side by side comparison using two windows and the difference is crystal clear. If you feel the article is lacking, then argue at AfD4, which I'm sure will be initiated microseconds afterwards, if the article is restored. This DRV is about the G4 speedy deletion of the new article, nothing else. —
Becksguy (
talk) 01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't turn it into Miss Universe, it's still a pig. Re-iterate opinion. --
CalendarWatcher (
talk) 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Ouch. No sense insulting all the Miss Universes with a Cabal comparison. They deserve much better. I suppose what I attempted was to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse... but it is still perceived as smelling of swine. Maybe I should turn my attention toward making that article on
Baconaise into a FA, as edible pork products are apparently seen as far more notable than contoversial writers... and heck, it already has 6 sources and only one is a blog.
- Look.... I grant that Cabal is not popular among many wiki editors, and because of that unpopularity, his article is under a great deal of scrutiny. And even though it will likely never be FA or GA, the improved article is in much better shape than many others (see
Baconaise). And yes, if the DRV of the new article results in it being allowed to be reposted, it will immediately be rushed to AfD #5 (I see this DRV as AfD #4), and will have a dozen delete opinions immediately within the first few seconds of it being so nominated.
- Cabal is seen as an ass by many. He is controversial. He is hated. But he does have enough independent coverage toward notability as required by
guideline, and enough
verification of his backgound... and he is even quoted by other notables in their own works, which seems to show his imfluences as a personality... even if sometimes seen as a noteriety. I feel that if the article can be kept neutral and non-defamitory, it will remain a proper and encyclopedic contribution to these pages... and certainly one of more note than
bacon flavored mayonaise.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Your laboured attempt at humour--you should probably not be doing that sort of thing for a living--and attempt to divine peoples' motivations without actual evidence are noted but irrelevant, and the 'independent coverage' which has been scraped up in a desperate bid to 'save' this article, as has been noted already, are still crap references. --
CalendarWatcher (
talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I see two DRVs going on at the same time here. One is the DRV for the recreation of the Alan Cabal article and the other is the DRV for the speedy deletion of the recreated Alan Cabal article. It's interesting to point out that most arguing to endorse the deletion are arguing about the former DRV and those arguing otherwise are arguing about the latter DRV. I think this should be about the former as any recreation of a deleted article like this should go through DRV first. That it didn't go through the proper channels isn't an excuse that the article should be kept as is because two admins differed on the terminology of speedy deletion. This shouldn't have even been posted in the first place without going through a recreation DRV, so any arguments about the speedy deletion are moot.
Them
From
Space 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn the speedy deletion and allow Schmidt's version of the article. I don't see how the new version of the article construes as
wikipuffery. With that said, as SoWhy said above, I am assuming good faith in that the admins in question aren't doing anything
unbecoming their position. This is exactly what DRV is for. Finally, I don't oppose to relisting at AFD; in fact, I expect that someone will probably re-nominate it.
MuZemike 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn Procedural grounds, and per the purported sock of Manhattan Samurai: 'For a guy who's supposedly of "insufficient notoriety" for Wikipedia inclusion, Mr. Cabal has ginned up quite the ongoing debate. What's really striking is that his name is now one of the only RED entries in a number of Wikipedia entries that cite him, e.g.
CounterPunch;
Gonzo journalism; and
New York Press. I'm also not seeing why Cabal is less important than say,
Jeff Koyen;
Toby Young;
Christopher X. Brodeur;
John Birmingham; or
Tucker Max, the latter entry which started as a self-promotion tool back in 2004, fully two years before the subject was of note for anything. Additionally, blog entries are used for thousands of Wiki references, including many of those I just cited, but for some reason, not allowed for Cabal. Seems like mucho double standards for the Cabal entry.'
Unomi (
talk) 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse false accusations against an editor raise a presumption that the editor acted properly; this presumption has not been overcome.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn for procedural reasons. Take it to AfD if need be. -
Peregrine Fisher (
talk) (
contribs) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- OverturnI'm getting dizzy from this game of musical chairs. Two admin's butts hit the chair at the same time. Seems like the only fair thing to impose is a re-do. Also Editor:Schmidt had made considerable improvement to the article. Like them or not, the article is worthy of reconsideretion since the facelift. No implication of impropriety. Let's start over and see what happens. --
Buster7 (
talk) 01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - as has been noted by others above, the core issue from the previous AFD - notability - has not been addressed in the new version. That said, hats off to MichaelQSchmidt for giving the article it's best chance.
Nancy
talk 19:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment MichaelQSchmidt has added nine new references during this DRV, bringing the total to 37, as compared to 10 in the old version. —
Becksguy (
talk) 09:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Cmt And not a single one establishes notability for Cabal. There is still nothing written about Cabal in a single reliable source. I've provided my analysis of these sources on this DRVs talk page.
Bali ultimate (
talk) 14:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn It seems agreed that there was a procedural snafu and the article is, in any case, too substantial now for speedy deletion.
Colonel Warden (
talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse as the reason for the deletion (lack of notability) was clearly not addressed by the rewrite. --
Hans Adler (
talk) 23:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
|
