User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/ISI

RFC
Please do not close running RFC's again as you did here. This is an entirely different RFC regarding the article layout, not the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thread merged -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ)    19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your closure is being reverted ... I think there was clearly no consensus in a very recent RFC right before this. Isn't admin closure meant to stay closed once it is done? (Another admin endorsed your closure here ). -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be flat out honest, this stupid that this is being reverted. We are talking about just making the text a section header now, AKA the same proposal. RegentsPark was right to reclose the debate, but now it's been reverted again, and now we have a random support vote? I'm tempted to just close this again, but i'll wait for RegentsPark or another admin to comment before I do because of the new vote...but seriously lets not make this a lame edit war. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ)    19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly... RegentsPark won't undo this again as he specified on a user talk... but it is a bad precedent to undo admin closures and add new comments... precisely WP:POINTy / lame editwar. I reverted that back but undid my revert to stay clear of an interaction ban but I've asked this at ANI in a ban clarification. This has been now closed three times including the original proposal's closure. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with DeltaQuad and find this all a bit silly.  Peter Symonds (talk ) 19:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed for the last time hopefully by myself, next stop if we get another revert is ANI imo, but it will be the lamest ANI thread ever. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ)    19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is lame is unilaterally closing an RFC which is about article structure, not content. Thank you for discussing it. Perhaps you would be good enough to let me know when I am allowed to participate in the dispute resolution process again. Do feel free to comment here if you can be bothered to discuss the issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this was an unilateral closing. Though the RfC was on structure, it was still arguing the same claims that the last RfC was going over, and the attempt to just put them under a new "structure" RfC looks like an attempt to undermine the previous RfC. Whether that was your actual intention or not, i'm not going to guess. You aren't prohibited from creating RfCs, and your assumption that there are bigger and better things = 1 month as you noted on RegentsPark's talkpage is telling me your not understanding that you need to reform your proposal, talk it out with the people who opposed your last RfC, and come up with some happy medium. It's a process of 'propose, no consensus, talk, refine, and repropose' until you find the right solution. A lot of what i'm saying is coming from WP:CONSENSUS. It's not the best to propose an RfC right after or during the previous one, especially with such opposition, because people will then feel like they are being bugged, and forced to !vote so that the same thing doesn't happen again. It's like the Pending Changes RfC, there is only a new proposal now to give a cool off period for people to deal with the the previous RfC and for idea refinement to occur. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   07:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what I find "silly" or "stupid" (your own nice words) is to close an RFC based on a previous RFC which didn't even reach to a consensus but only had two editors which edit from a strong Pakistani point of view participating. The RFC was closed by the proposer himself before wider participation by the community, to come up with a slightly different proposal from where to work from. I didn't find the time to participate in the last proposal, but would have participated in this one. I also want to point to the fact that "consensus can change". JCAla (talk) 07:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, silly Strike, those were not my words lame and stupid were not the best words for me to use above, but I was only commenting in regard to the reverting of the closure, not towards the RfC. I will not look into the claim and possibly discount !votes because an editor has a strong POV in one area or another, each editor is entitled to their own opinion. As for the level of participation, it had from 15:18, January 17, 2012 to 15:31, February 16, 2012 with an RfC tag, it was also transcluded on WP:AN from 10:12, February 15, 2012 till it's closure last night on the 28th. There was plenty of time for people to comment if they were even remotely interested in the topic.Darkness Shines also commented that the RfC did not reach a consensus for change. Now all that being said, as with several of my previous RfC closures (see my contribs) I clearly note that consensus can change and will never deny that fact, so feel free to reopen a new RfC down the road once it's all talked out or a refined proposal comes through. But it is disruptive to the consensus process to repost the same relative RfC (which is a fact you don't seem to be bringing up, so I assume that you agree) as before right after or during the consensus process. Ideas need to be reformed, talked out and rehashed as I said in the post above yours. --  DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   08:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Modified: --  DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   08:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, got your point. You are saying, another RFC can be started but first people should give it another try to discuss things on the article's talk without an RFC. The problem is the already involved editors have repeatedly found it difficult to productively come to a common conclusion, that is why input by the community is needed. That - as of yet - has not been the case. Only the involved editors have made a statement on the previous RFC. JCAla (talk) 09:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very possible that that could happen, and that's when you should probably Request a third opinion or use another relevant noticeboard. I would also like to note Nightw posted an opinion on the neutrality of the text from WP:NPOVN. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nightw has been an involved editor in some previous disputes, his is not a fresh opinion and it doesn't come as a surprise to some. JCAla (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NW was enlisted through WP:NPOVN before as well as now... that makes him uninvolved since he doesn't edit those articles. His views being in disagreement with you are a totally different thing. -- lTopGunl (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about opinion, it's about the tone. JCAla (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, regardless of NightW being a fresh opinion or not, you do still have what I said above. Lets discuss the issue at hand, not the editor. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ)    22:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, I agree. Does calling for a third opinion make sense when there is already a guild of several editors with standing positions? Noticeboards is an option. But TopGun and me i. e. went to the noticeboards for a Taliban issue, we are still waiting for replies from fresh editors. ;) JCAla (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in response, I actually was using "Third" opinion more as a term not necessarily as #3. So I would be willing to look over the disputed content and give my opinions from a Wikipolicy point of view, but will not be forming an opinion, so like a mediation. I might be willing to do it for your other issue to. Both of you would have to agree though. Does that sound ok? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the ISI discussion was originally between Darkness Shines and TopGun, so I guess they would need to agree (but both are on an IBAN with regards to each other currently). So, don't know how that would work? Your input on the Taliban content dispute between TopGun, Darkness Shines and me would be welcome. You can find it here. Your efforts are appreciated. JCAla (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look as soon as I can, probably today or tomorrow. I probably will leave the IBAN alone for now, and hit one at at time. I will need to poke the other two also and will probably create a subpage for mediating anything, but i'll look at what we have first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   13:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

2 RFCs now an AFD
Merged. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, remember closing the ISI RFC and the next one twice? Now there's an AFD for the same content. You were the closing admin so I'll ask you to take a look. No further comments as there's an IBAN... but do take a look at the AFD and the article (you have context enough to understand or close if right). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, uninvolved editors have gotten involved there such as User:Mark Arsten and voted "keep". So this should not be censored as TG suggests. Also, TopGun is obviously violating his IBAN here as he is commenting on Darkness Shines' content and article creation - something Darkness Shines would immediately get blocked for as you can see on his talk page. JCAla (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've clarified this at ANI, so no. Commenting on content (which actually does not belong to anyone) is not an IBAN vio... and this is not a censor attempt either but per consensus. If you attempt again to discredit my opinion labeling it as IBAN vio, I will report you because I've clarified this a number of times. Btw, uninvovled editors were there before too. Nw for instance, who came through NPOVN. I'll let DQ judge anyway. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Linkies help guys :) Anyway, no worries with that. So let's see, if it was started on the 13th, then I need to be back there for the 20th, got it. But ya, i'll kick around and close it if no one beats me to it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, forgot to link the AFD! Thanks. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism
I must protest your closure of this given you were already involved having unilaterally closed an RFC regarding the same subject matter twice, Please over turn your closure and allow an uninvolved administrator handle it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I was involved, I wouldn't of touched it. "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. [...] advice about community norms, [...] do not make an administrator 'involved'. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have requested a review of the deletion, I am of the opinion that you most certainly are involved given your comments above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A link would have been nice. But you are certainly within your "rights" to do so. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot the link. Regarding your comment at DRV, why would I bring up something which you must have already read? The comments I have made at DRV are no different to what was written by other editors at the AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Mh ... 8 editors said "keep", 6 said "delete" of which some said "and redirect". What made you conclude there was a consensus for delete? JCAla (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @DS: Because maybe I misread a statement or something, and you brought up a whole new argument of me my close trying to censor Wikipedia. I will never deprive someone of their point of view on what I did, so long as it doesn't involve attacking other editors etc.
 * @JCAla: There was some socking/votestacking of some sort going on (see the CU thread below), and it is not a vote count, it's argument strength. And I thought I covered the reasons why in my close, but let's try again. I did totally consider keeping the article, but to start with, the article title was not appropriate. So with that cleared up, it was either keep or delete now. Looking over the content, I saw several non-neutral statements and quite a load of source synthesis going on. The POVFORK issues that others brought up had some merit to it. The first two sections of the article were purely facts that were duplicating another topic, or a POVFORK. The last paragraph about Balochistan conflict was the only one that had something usable in it. Not to mention the six cleanup tags on the article. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Most editors obviously found the "keep" arguments stronger than the "delete" ones. And there was an IP statement on both parts of the debate, so this was not limited to one argument. The six clean-up tags were added intentionally by those who wanted the article deleted. As far as I can see everything was reliably sourced. So, I think, it was either keep or merge into the article about Pakistan's support for terrorism. JCAla (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no synthesis at all in that article, I strongly object to that accusation. The sources used for statements of fact were from the academic press and the entire section Support for terrorists was sourced to the academic press. The only sources which were not academic were used only to source violations on human rights. The article should be kept, and do not say the information is in the ISI article, it is not as it was removed. The ISI article is to bloody big and messy anyway, it is about time spin off were made. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @JCAla: I'm just going to come out and say this because I don't like dancing around subjects, you are counting the !votes, and that's a notion that I'm not going to deal with. Yes my close may have been controversial, but that is because i'm not counting the !votes, but looking at the bigger picture. About the tags, ok, they were there, but they weren't removed either, which means that there is a problem with the article relating to most of the tags. And statements of everything being "reliably sourced", which I partly disagree with, will not overturn this AfD. Better reasons are needed.
 * @DS: Ok, looking it over, WP:SYN was my mal-wording of the bigger problem, which Eluchil404 stated as "Accusations that the ISI supports terrorist groups or facilitates terrorism are easy enough to find in reliable sources, but it doesn't follow that a content fork dedicated to such accusations is necessary or desirable." But please understand that i'm not trying to attack you personally through what you wrote with this, and my appologies if it feels that way. I don't have a problem with a spin off, but I have an issue with the way this one was created as a POVFORK, and how the statements were made to look.
 * @All: I get the strange notion here from reading what I have that I might be coming off as supporting terrorism, that's not my objective, nor my opinion. My objective is to have a neutral encyclopedia. (which I know is a suicide mission in itself) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)   05:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you support a move to a more neutral title? Inter-Services Intelligence alleged support for militants or similar? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * DQ, no, I am simply coming to a different conclusion with regards to what was the consensus at that AfD. I have a different judgement on what the majority of the editors said (yes) but also (!) about the weight of the arguments. And as can be seen, even part of those who were for deletion, at least favored a redirect or merge. I think, you did not take that into account. As for the supposed neutrality. Wikipedia as such is not neutral, let's not fool ourselves here. Wikipedia is a reflection of the majority opinion among sources considered "reliable". It does not give equal weight to minority positions (which in some cases may be very well right, and the majority might be wrong), it also does not reflect what i. e. dictatorship-run media see as the "truth" (which is a good thing), etc. Now, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), according to the majority position among "reliable sources", is supporting organizations which have been classified internationally as terrorist organizations. Almost every single Afghan civilian and ANA soldier as well as American, Canadian, European, Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban (and Taliban are responsible for 80 % of the civilian death and 90-100% of the military death) has been killed because of the recruitment, brain-washing, training, supplying, sending of brain-washed killers by the ISI. There is plenty of academic and other expert material on the fact, that militant organizations act as a strategic instrument for the military dictatorship in Pakistan. That is certainly worthy of an article or at least needs to be merged into the broader article about Pakistan's support to terrorism. As for the tags, oh, they were removed, but edit-warred back into the article. I didn't really feel the need to engage in an edit war for tags. I am sure, if more people had been aware of that article, that over-tagging would soon have come to an end. JCAla (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aah, I smell the usual dose of fringe theories and POV propaganda back in action. Just thought I'd pop in my timely advice, beware DQ! Don't let soapboxing-style propaganda flay your noble mission of upholding the neutrality of this encyclopedia. I fully support your actions. For now, I'll leave the matter between you and Darkness Shines/JCAla & Co and am sure you will work out a neutral solution to this. Regards,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is typical WP:POINT. First RFCs closed repeatedly, AFD resulted in deletion, all these mean, there actually is something wrong with the content and there's consensus to exclude it. You some how seem to be insisting on it till you've had your way. I think it will be better not to repeatedly convince DQ of the reasons for the content, rather let his judgement of the article included consensus stay because you're asking him to add a supper vote into the decision. Seeing the DRV, this discussion is moot anyway. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, DeltaQuad, what do you have to say about this article that seems to have been created as a way to get around the closed AfD decision? A bit worrisome.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather say, beware of the "green" invasion. ;o) Everything I wrote above can be fact-checked very, very easily. The article "ISI in Afghanistan" is only worrisome to ISI supporters and those who fall for their narrative. JCAla (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mar4d, stop following my edits. As to the article it most certainly is not a way around the AFD, it is an entirely different article. Given there are any number of CIA activities in (Country here) then this is no different to one of those. I am still working on the ISI terrorism article as can be seen in my user space here. And once I have polished it up I will again move it to main space using a more neutral title as many at the AFD and the DRV suggested. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)