Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators

Spamming
User:172 has now spammed around 40 people asking them to vote here - and he has continued to use the trick noted above whereby he opens up the last message on the page and adds a header there so he wont have a long list of edits in his "user contribs" saying "please vote" or something. He tailors each message to the reader with an opening sentence like: "Recently I've been having difficulties in getting a sufficient amount of feedback from the top caliber editors of the history and politics articles-- needed in order to establish a consensus in the vote" or some such comment. The iconic words of Joseph Welch to McCarthy spring to my mind.
 * You are undermining the foundation of wikipedia by this behavior. If you must pursue this path of ignominy and bad taste 172, could you at least stop using the misleading policy described above.
 * You still have not explained your understanding of WP:NOR (the basis of this nomination) to me, nor to anyone else in terms of wikipedia policy. I have asked you c.15 times.  I am begging to suspect that you realise that it is a absurd interpretation.  Am I wrong User:172?  Is an explanation in terms of wikipedia policy statements on the way?  jucifer 02:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

''Not only have you now moved my comments above twice, since you claim they are irrelevant, you have now gone further and erased my response to your deletion. This is totally out of order.'' If you hadn't tried to hide the fact that you were spamming, I wouldn't have had to bring this up. I have been in a few AfD debates before, but never has anyone spammed like this - to the extent that most of the delete votes are from people you have spammed. You are free to respond. Again (as I did in the post you just deleted) I ask you to explain you stance on WP:NOR in terms of wiki policy. As I also said in the post you deleted if you can do so satisfactorily, I will change my vote. Yours  jucifer 03:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project produced by a community, and seeking feedback is essential in the process of collaborative peer editing. In my three years on Wikipedia I have had the privilege of becoming familiar with the work of a number of some pretty impressive people. And yes, naturally I happen to respect all of the people whom I have asked for feedback. I'd go as far to say that just about all the people whom I contacted are smarter than I am. A number of users whom I "spammed" are professional historians, philosophers, and social scientists who are much more accomplished than I am. A number of them also happen to be undergraduates (Ambi, Jiang, and Neutrality immediately come to mind), a fact that blows my mind every time I interact with them, as I was nowhere near their level of knowledge and analytic skills when I was their age.

Moreover, virtually none of the editors I notified has not disagreed with me at least once over one matter or another over the course of my three years on Wikipedia. Jiang and Mikka in particular have corrected me many times on Chinese and Russian naming conventions, respectively. Another example is Maveric149 (from whom I am still waiting for a reply), who is one the longtime Wikipedia editor with whom I have had the greatest number of disagreements. Actually, I respect the people whom I contacted because they never accept my conclusions on faith and never fail to assess my work critically. If I were interested in practicing nepotism, the last people I'd consider contacting would be the people I have been contacting regarding this AfD. 172 02:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: opens up the last message on the page and adds a header there so he wont have a long list of edits in his "user contribs" saying "please vote" or something. The word "misunderestimate" was coined by George W. Bush to refer to some of his opponents. I now will coin the term "misoverestimate" to refer to the above. You apparently think that I am a lot craftier than I really am; I'm just not smart enough to figure out how to plan all of the various conspiracies that you have been attributing to me. I post under the bottom headings on talk page because it takes less time for the browser window to load and open up than it does to wait for an entire talk page to load. 172 03:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

'''Oh give it a rest, Jucifer. You are boring everyone at this stage going on and on and on and on. Looking at the number of delete votes it is obviously a heck of a lot of people share his worries. Show some appreciation for the obvious annoyance of many people, rather than droning on and on about your chip on the shoulder about 172.'''

Most of the delete votes are due to his spamming, if it wasnt done deceptivly I would not have pointed it out. If he would like to defend himself he is free to so do. However his behaviour is central to this deletion, and this needs to be pointed out. My comments have now been reverted thrice if they are reverted again you know what happens. Yours, jucifer 03:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Give it a rest. FearÉIREANN \(caint)  04:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jtdirl on this. I voted "keep" as it happens; in fact, I actually made some modest improvements to the page to make it worth keeping (IMO).  But there's absolutely nothing improper about 172 asking for the opinions of other editors.  None of those valuable editors are going to simply fall into blind obedience to 172: they each make their own judgement on the vote.  Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite so, i have nothing againstspamming per se, only the hiding of the fact using dubious tricks. I cannot revert the removal anymore, b/c 172has reverted thrice, and jdtirl once - so they have both overstepped 3rr, and should be sactioned.  It is never ok to remove someone elses comment.
 * Indeed it is not okay to remove comments. However, we are supposed to move comments to their proper location, as was done here. 172 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW 3 reverts are allowed. 172 did 3. I did 1. Neither of us has gone beyond 3. Can you count? FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Jucifier, you wrote earlier, "You have ignored by [I assume you meant "my"] rebuttals so far leaving your miinions [I assume you meant "minions"] to try haplessly on your behalf." I am deeply flattered by your suggestion that there are so many highly esteemed editors who have accounts on Wikipedia in order to do what I them to do; but that suggestion is an honor of which I am undeserving, as Lulu demonstrates above. Almost all of the people I contacted have disagreed with me at one point or another. Lulu voted "keep"; and he will remain high up on my list when I need to seek the opinions of other editors, as will Jmabel. No one voted to deleted because I told them how to vote (unfortunately for me-- having some minions would make my work around ehre a lot easier!). 172 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it telling that the people complaining about 'spamming' are not the people 172 'spammed' but his opponents in the vote. I find it perfectly ok to notify people interested in such matters about the vote. I, for example, don't follow AfD closely, none have I been aware of the existence of this interesting article, and I'd like to thank 172 for notification about the vote. I see that the vote has ended. If I came earlier and voted I'd vote 'keep', FYI.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment above. Your posts on my page are also always welcome, and have been quite helpful to me. I'm also often not aware of what's going on until someone has contacted me asking me to take a look. 172 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I just wish 172 had "spammed" me too. I just didn't know about the vote but agree that the article should be deleted because it is unworkable, SqueakBox 15:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My mistake! I forgot you I think because I've been losing track of the Latin America articles lately, where you're most active. But now that I remember I'm adding you to my spam list for next time. Piotrus, Lulu, Jmabel, who are siding with the keep side, also need not be worried; they'll stay up on my spam list. In turn I hope that my delete stance does not get me kicked off Piotrus' spam list, which has been helpful to me in the past. 172 15:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course you are on my spam list already, and I on yours. I must broaden my spam list again. People get miffed if I don't "spam" them about something. (But then User:Violetriga goes ballistic if I do!) lol FearÉIREANN \(caint)  15:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote closing
We don't have to close the vote on any rigid timetable. Often votes are allowed to stay open longer than 5 days in order to establish a consensus; and this VfD offers as compelling of reasons to do so as any other instance. As of now the deletes are at 60% instead of the needed 67% percent at the end of five days-- an arbitary little difference that does not offer much of a compelling reason to keep the article. Wikipedia is not well served by allowing editors to vote away NPOV and other content policies based on technicalities. 172 14:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should not have been closed so soon when with such lack of consensus and controversies it cried out for at least 7 days. I for on would like to vote, am not happy weith the alleged removal opf delete votes and know this article will just cause problems until resolved. I amtempted to get rid of almost everyone (alleged dictators) till an NPOV list can be created on the basis that what we have is a grossly POV list that jsut reflects the political motivations of some editors, SqueakBox 14:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

regarding deletion of the list
Since the project page is (most curiously) protected, I will share my comments here.

I believe that 172 is correct that Wikipedia is not well served by the subject page. It is my view that Wikipedia is, as a rule, not well served by "List" articles, because the decision to include a particular entry or not on a list is an all-or-nothing affair that provides no opportunity for reasoned discourse. There are many individuals in modern history that cannot be accurately labelled as "dictators" or "non-dictators" and by creating such a false dichotomy pages such as this mislead the reader, lower the overall tone of discourse for the encyclopedia, and create conflict. It is this false dichotomy, and not NPOV or original research, that leads me to conclude that the subject page should be deleted, though the NPOV and original research arguments do carry significant weight as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI to everyone interested: the discussion on relisting the VfD has been gathering momentum at Deletion review. 172 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)