User talk:Vfrickey/Archives/2016/October

Ruggero Santilli 2nd AfD Discussion "No consensus" closure
(the following is a copy to a message to  A  Train regarding closure and archival of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruggero_Santilli_(2nd_nomination).  I urge readers to observe WP:Assume Good Faith on the part of  A  Train, myself, and other editors accused of bad faith editing on the article by Maester Anderson. loupgarous (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC))

I count eight "Delete" votes (counting my tacit one for having opened the 2nd AfD discussion) and seven "Keep" votes.

I'm assuming good faith in asking if your closure of the discussion is the eighth "Keep" vote required to make this a "no consensus" discussion.

I'd also like, for my own information, to know your bases for the statement "There were some very strong arguments on both sides, as well as some low-effort !votes that I effectively discounted."


 * Whose votes did you discount, and why, please?

I have been following the discussion every day, but didn't have a chance to read, much less respond to Maester Anderson's arguments (in which he accused some of us of not acting in good faith by deleting articles with dead links pointing to them, and restated Karl Popper's praise of the subject in a way which deserved an answer). I'd have appreciated some time to answer his charges, and his contention that a single encomium by one person is proof of notability.

If you check the article's talk page, you'll see one paid editor is already curating the article. While assuming Mr. Buckley's good faith, would it be possible to check IP on Maester Anderson to see if that IP comes from the Tampa-St. Petersburg area? It's a little effort, but Maester Anderson making what could be boilerplate from the subject's own statements in support of his contributions to physics and mathematics deserves a little scrutiny.


 * I wish i was in Florida and I am definitely not Dr. Santilli. I am trying to improve the article - not get involved with your personal beef you have towards the man. I would think in good faith you would recuse yourself from editing his article with your openly admitted conflict of interest? Although I would prefer you stay. Maester Anderson (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * First, I admitted no such thing as a WP:CoI with respect to that AfD discussion. I stated, as anyone with Google can find for themselves, that I'd been attacked by one of Santilli's employees on the Internet, and this was a separate issue from the AfD process.  I was being fully candid with other editors in that respect.  Since your statement could have been lifted boilerplate from other remarks on the Internet by Santilli or his paid Internet writers, the evolving consensus is that your editing of that article is more problematic than mine.  Lately I replaced two dead links with Wayback Machine archives of Internet pages containing material cited in support of that article. I'm not obliged to do that; a dead link is generally construed as lack of supporting evidence for a statement in an article.  Editors have the option of removing the statement it supports until another editor can furnish a supporting citation.  I chose to exert the added effort to find such evidence in the Internet Wayback Machine archive, instead. I also rephrased a sentence to make it supportable by its citation.  I had no real obligation to do that, either - in a biography of a living person on wikipedia, a statement not supported by a citation MUST be deleted.  I chose instead to edit the statement so it complied with WP:BLP.  Every edit I've made on that article and other articles in wikipedia over thirteen years has been a good faith effort to make wikipedia better.
 * In defaming me on the Internet, Santilli and his people have simply placed me in the excellent company of Steven Weinberg. loupgarous (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am, of course, assuming your good faith. That's why I'm bothering to send this note at all. We've already had one admin close this discussion as "Keep" when there were more "Delete" votes. It's possible to question the process leading to closure of a discussion without questioning your good faith, but I do have questions about Maester Anderson appearing out of nowhere, supposedly a new editor, with the comments he's made. Maester Anderson questioned my good faith and that of other editors, and this discussion was closed and archived before we could respond to the accusation.

Reposting this on my talk page and creating a talk page on the 2nd AfD discussion for the article. loupgarous (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli 2nd AfD Discussion "No consensus" closure
(the following is a copy to a message to  A  Train regarding closure and archival of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruggero_Santilli_(2nd_nomination).  I urge readers to observe WP:Assume Good Faith on the part of  A  Train, myself, and other editors accused of bad faith editing on the article by Maester Anderson. loupgarous (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC))

I count eight "Delete" votes (counting my tacit one for having opened the 2nd AfD discussion) and seven "Keep" votes.

I'm assuming good faith in asking if your closure of the discussion is the eighth "Keep" vote required to make this a "no consensus" discussion.

I'd also like, for my own information, to know your bases for the statement "There were some very strong arguments on both sides, as well as some low-effort !votes that I effectively discounted."


 * Whose votes did you discount, and why, please?

I have been following the discussion every day, but didn't have a chance to read, much less respond to Maester Anderson's arguments (in which he accused some of us of not acting in good faith by deleting articles with dead links pointing to them, and restated Karl Popper's praise of the subject in a way which deserved an answer). I'd have appreciated some time to answer his charges, and his contention that a single encomium by one person is proof of notability.

If you check the article's talk page, you'll see one paid editor is already curating the article. While assuming Mr. Buckley's good faith, would it be possible to check IP on Maester Anderson to see if that IP comes from the Tampa-St. Petersburg area? It's a little effort, but Maester Anderson making what could be boilerplate from the subject's own statements in support of his contributions to physics and mathematics deserves a little scrutiny.


 * I wish i was in Florida and I am definitely not Dr. Santilli. I am trying to improve the article - not get involved with your personal beef you have towards the man. I would think in good faith you would recuse yourself from editing his article with your openly admitted conflict of interest? Although I would prefer you stay. Maester Anderson (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * First, I admitted no such thing as a WP:CoI with respect to that AfD discussion. I stated, as anyone with Google can find for themselves, that I'd been attacked by one of Santilli's employees on the Internet, and this was a separate issue from the AfD process.  I was being fully candid with other editors in that respect.  Since your statement could have been lifted boilerplate from other remarks on the Internet by Santilli or his paid Internet writers, the evolving consensus is that your editing of that article is more problematic than mine.  Lately I replaced two dead links with Wayback Machine archives of Internet pages containing material cited in support of that article. I'm not obliged to do that; a dead link is generally construed as lack of supporting evidence for a statement in an article.  Editors have the option of removing the statement it supports until another editor can furnish a supporting citation.  I chose to exert the added effort to find such evidence in the Internet Wayback Machine archive, instead. I also rephrased a sentence to make it supportable by its citation.  I had no real obligation to do that, either - in a biography of a living person on wikipedia, a statement not supported by a citation MUST be deleted.  I chose instead to edit the statement so it complied with WP:BLP.  Every edit I've made on that article and other articles in wikipedia over thirteen years has been a good faith effort to make wikipedia better.
 * In defaming me on the Internet, Santilli and his people have simply placed me in the excellent company of Steven Weinberg. loupgarous (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am, of course, assuming your good faith. That's why I'm bothering to send this note at all. We've already had one admin close this discussion as "Keep" when there were more "Delete" votes. It's possible to question the process leading to closure of a discussion without questioning your good faith, but I do have questions about Maester Anderson appearing out of nowhere, supposedly a new editor, with the comments he's made. Maester Anderson questioned my good faith and that of other editors, and this discussion was closed and archived before we could respond to the accusation.

Reposting this on my talk page and creating a talk page on the 2nd AfD discussion for the article. loupgarous (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)