Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PalestineRemembered/Saeb Erekat


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was Close Keep/no consensus Andrew c [talk] 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered/Saeb Erekat
Constitutes an attack in that it says that 'one editor seized OWNERSHIP of this article, and edit-warred eight others into silence, driving at least two good literate editors out of the project in the process'. I asked the user to remove it; no response. Userspace is not for maintaining dirty laundry lists to be aired out in future disputes, nor is it a place to slander other users. Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. See WP:UP/10.  A very good reason is not provided.  This sort of thing is not the way to move forward.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No specific editor is attacked, I have seen many pages where summaries of how an editor's opinions are viewed are listed, and seen far sharper wording about such editors. I find no "slander" in it either.  The talk page which it seeks to summarize is linked, and so anyone reading this page has the ability to readily determine its accuracy or inaccuracy.  Collect (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually read 'you may reasonable conclude that one editor seized OWNERSHIP of this article, and edit-warred eight others into silence, driving at least two good literate editors out of the project in the process. The editor in question had to be finally over-come by edit-warring brute force in April 2008, though the article still contains a vestigal version of the worthless claim.' the first para beneath the table. It seems structured to avoid any direct slander while making it clear to all and sundry who PalestineRemembered is accusing of driving away editors and WP:OWNing the article. Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a long distance between careful wording and actual attack. Amazingly enough, calling it an attack may cause far more people to look at the substance than simply letting it be. Sometimes it pays to ignore indirect affronts. Collect (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So your comment amounts to 'keep because it is indirectly bitchy rather than directly rude'? Ironholds (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Know how many pages would be deletable if the definition of "attack" were broadened as far as you appear to wish? Collect (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots. Know how many of them are actually useful to the encyclopedia? Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PR responds - If I'm right that articles can be damaged by processes not working correctly or admins falling asleep on their job, then this page is extremely useful. If I'm wrong then it's also useful - people can decide (for themselves) that I'm "crying wolf". I'm not treating other editors as stupid, and I don't suppose that's your intention either. Perhaps my example proves that mild OWNERSHIP of articles can briefly occur but the usual processes work to fix it - making it useful and totally unobjectionable. There is nothing wrong or strange about an editor losing out in a content dispute like this.
 * If you or others think that my wording presents my POV in an overly obvious or personal fashion, then I have no problem with fixing it, and welcome suggestions. The last thing you or I want is for discussions like this to be banished to another place, where they are bound to be seen as attack pages, censored at WP because they're too close to the bone for comfort. PRtalk 10:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank God there are editors here who can decide for everyone what is "useful to the encyclopedia", what stays and what goes. Ikip (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Same as the other one, but yes, WP:UP. There has been no dispute resolution forth coming. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree, lists like this are potentially inflammatory and divisive, and should be deleted. WP:UP. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  17:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete is indeed an attack page and has been used on numerous instances, most inappropriately and irrelevantly whenever the editor felt like attacking my personality\credibility (as they see it) rather than address relevant content. The page is also an inaccurate misleading mess -- using, for example, comments from 2006 from a discussion that reached a consensus that lasted a whole year until said user popped on the page with another friend of theirs -- and selectively misrepresents content discussions. Another example is this comment that supports the controversial nature of Erekat and is casually missing from the aforementioned UPfD.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PR responds to Jaakobou - thankyou for confirming that you have checked this mini-article and that it was 100% accurate at the time of writing. The comment you refer to appeared on the TalkPage in Feb 2008, 3 weeks after I unveiled the results of my research, demonstrating that one editor had defied 8 others to include a BLP at the article for 15 months. All my work is accurate - that's my only justification for doing work on the project. Editors will note that, even after this result was known, it took a further 4 months and a blocking of you before the article was written to consensus and policy. Now you're here, perhaps you'd care to tell other editors how this astonishing position arose and what credibility you have left as an editor of articles in the project. PRtalk 12:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear PalestineRemembered,
 * You've misread into my comment as the page is one big misrepresentation; not a "100% accurate" article.
 * It seems that you are you are attacking my credibility (per "what credibility you have left as an editor"). Would you please rephrase your comment as to respect WP:NPA?
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:UP clause #10 seems perfrectly clear to me, and it seems to talk specifically about these kinds of pages. A page doesn't have to directly state the name of another editor to be an attack page, when it is clearly seen who the attacked editor is. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clause #10 reads as follows and almost certainly does not apply: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."
 * This page (like many others throughout the project) is intended to highlight a problem, not to highlight the flaws of any particular editor. If there is unnecessary comment on individual editors or personalities, then I am happy to take them out. PRtalk 10:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * PR comments - I don't know what the community will think of this page, however, I'd like to propose that it's a valuable example of what can happen. As noted by another, I have repeatedly drawn people's attention to it and nobody has previously objected. I would hotly dispute that it "misrepresents content discussions" and nobody has ever claimed this before. Most significantly, reason for me thinking that having this page was perfectly proper may be found here, where comments of mine have been used in order to make it appear that, for instance, I support and (presumably) reference/quote David Irving in articles. This is a total and blatant fabrication as well as being a deeply unpleasant one. By comparison, I'm confident that carefully documenting a single incident is both legitimate and useful to all. Please note that there is another MfD going on here, whereat there are non-AGF attempts to paint me as intransigent. Ironholds has asked me to delete, but with the discussion of these pages already thrust into the limelight I was waiting for feedback from the community. And waiting, in particular, for the feedback at an MfD on this UserPage that I was led to understand would be taken. I fail to understand the rush to apply a non-existent policy to my pages without the wider discussion coming to completion. PRtalk 10:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Collect's comments. Richard Myers (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep appropriate use, for not unreasonable comments about wp  editing. DGG (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this seems to be more of a critique of wikipedia, suggesting that persistence can on occasion overcome policy such as BLP. Doesnt seem to be an unreasonable critique either. Though maybe the names could be replaced with Editor 1, 2, 3 . . . Nableezy (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per collect, richard myers, DGG, Nableezy, Collect. Pages like this are common, and have never been under attack by deletion. Again, if the editors don't like it, don't visit the page, and leave the creator alone please. Nominator seems to have a personal grudge against this editor. Ikip (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That final comment in your rationale crosses the line and is what is technically called "bullshit". Outside of these MfDs, another one actually suggested by this user and disucssion related to the MfDs on our respective talkpages I have never interacted with PR and have no 'grudge'. My only 'grudge' is with unneeded, disruptive laundry lists and people who throw accusations of bias or personal interests around too freely. Ironholds (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that I've never had any previous dealings with Ironholds (or indeed with Ikip). However, I have been repeatedly targetted by people I've had no dealings with in ways strongly suggestive of collusion (this one was particularly sloppy and totally unjustified).
 * Meanwhile, Ironholds has led me to understand he's interested in doing something about a much, much more serious case, a complete fabrication and unpleasant real-life smear appearing on a UserPage. We should all wish him success in the good work he has planned. PRtalk 13:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I tried MfDing that; a unanimous keep. I think the fact that one of the keep voters knows the user in question IRL and at least one other came to the MfD from a corresponding thread on Wikipedia Review casts the validity of the results into some doubt, and also proves how false the idea of consensus following policy is. Ironholds (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked the last 10,000 edits you've carried out, I don't find any MfD on the GHcool page. PRtalk 15:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * GHcool? Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong article. Under pressure GHCool agreed to remove the names, but left the diffs... which link to the names. Ah. Methinks it is time to have another talk with him. Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot see the point of presenting evidence but obscuring who it refers to. And I've not objected to evidence, only to deceit. In fact, I'd have been inclined to say that deceit was totally incompatible with producing good articles. What do you think? PRtalk 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreement. If it is 'evidence' for future issues you need names and diffs to link it. It is an all-or-nothing situation; it isn't appropriate to have names (at the very least) and the stuff is useless without them, so moving them to a .txt on his PC and then tagging it for deletion-by-author is probably the most logical idea. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind being linked to statements such as "the fact that Israel (and it's founding fathers before 1948) intended to seize and ethnically cleanse the Muslim south of Lebanon is historical fact" because it's true (Moshe Sharrat, 2nd Israeli Prime Minister, describes Ben-Gurion and Dayan plotting to attack the neighbour that had never done anything to them). What I don't understand is the deceit that some people think is perfectly acceptable in editors. PRtalk 17:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reason I would support keeping my page. However, I don't wish to discuss my page here.  PalestineRemembered is engaging in a tu quoque argument (i.e. "GHcool's page is bad therefore my page is good" ... when you put it like this, anyone can see how the logic fails).  It is a complete non-sequitur to the issue of PalestineRemembered's page and an attempt to hijack the conversation.  I encourage disagreements, arguments, and even false accusations of deceit regarding my page are to be directed to me on my talk page where I can respond accordingly.  Let's keep on topic, shall we? --GHcool (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - no definitive harm being done to anyone. You may not like it, but unless you can show harm, there's no justification for it's deletion. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:UP does not seem to be a valid rationale, as it is simply one user's opinion regarding a problematic article, rater than calling out editors for flaws or for direct criticism. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.