Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy

Reboot?
Would it be ludicrous to plan to reboot this AfD? Not only has there been (I think) new sources produced/found during it, but there is a debate bubbling under it which needs addressing more clearly: can WP logs be used as primary sources in an article like this? I think WP:PSTS certainly permits that, but a lot of the Delete !votes seem to assume not. Also the Afd has now got so long that consensus is going to be pretty hard to determine. Most likely outcome seems No consensus, and most reasonable conclusion should be to clarify the PSTS issue (somewhere), let the article stay a week or two (should be enough for coverage to die down), then AfD again and see what happens.

Secondarily, it seems to me this AfD illustrates a gap in Notability guidelines - namely for events. Event articles are often rightly rejected as WP:NOTNEWS, but this is often tricky to apply to events, particularly current events. Similarly, the standard of having multiple WP:RS (i.e. newspapers, here) covering an event doesn't necessarily mean much; if applied rigorously, Wikipedia would trample all over Wikinews' toes. (There is actually an argument that as an encyclopedia, coverage of recent events should be kept to a reasonable minimum, with a big effort to punt that sort of contribution to Wikinews, with a view to transwiki-ing material later on. With impending licence changes, this will now be possible.) Disembrangler (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If consensus is not reached, the article is kept, right? Why should we "reboot" the discussion at this time, when it's becoming pretty clear that there is no consensus to delete this article? Unitanode  00:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the situation is fluid in a number of ways. For example, as Hans Adler pointed out, the article has changed substantially recently. For a normal Afd, no consensus = keep might be enough. This has stimulated enough controversy that I think when a number of things have settled down, the debate should be rebooted. I don't mean that in a "I hope it gets deleted next time" way, just that a conclusion firmer than "no consensus" would be preferable. I think it's quite possible next time it would be a firm Keep or even Rename/Merge (I'm still not clear on whether David Boothroyd merited deletion). Disembrangler (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the by, I made a lot of points above, and it's a bit disappointing you only responded to what is probably the least important one. Disembrangler (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I felt that, boiled down, the basic issue with rebooting was that it serves no purpose. If the point is, "Jayen has vastly improved the article", then a "no consensus = keep" closure accomplishes keeping it, and minimizes the drama that would be caused by a reboot. There's simply no way that the people who comment "delete per nom" and things that mean the same basic thing as that, are going to be swayed by a reboot to have a firmer "keep" recommendation. Unitanode  12:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am surprised to find myself basically agreeing with Unitanode on this. Yes, the most likely outcome is no consensus, and yes, that will likely lead to another AfD rather soon. I think such a second AfD is the functional equivalent of a restart, and it's a much cleaner restart, too. Also in a week's time we can see whether this ends with the one Register canard that has been copied all over the globe, or whether there is additional, independent reporting. We will also have a much better idea of what the article will look like in the long run. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So once in awhile I make sense is your basic point? I'm so incredibly flattered... Unitanode  13:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so (i) "reboot" was incredibly confusing language on my part. I meant "agree to let it go and do another AfD soon". (ii) it's the other issues I'm interested in discussing further, like how WP:PSTS should apply to this situation, and whether we need to develop notability criteria for events, and whether we should try harder to push news to Wikinews. Disembrangler (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this case has reminded me of something related that I am occasionally thinking about. It starts with the following two ideas:
 * For topics closely connected with Wikipedia, it would be both more natural and likely to lead to higher-quality outcomes if we would accept on-wiki primary sources as technically reliable sources (but not proof of notability).
 * It would be natural for a project of our scale to spend a small amount of its effort on documenting its own history.
 * There are several directions where we can go from here, e.g.
 * Make WP:WikiProject Wikipedia a bit more prominent. (I was going to propose something similar to this project; just discovered it.) This project could start covering not necessarily notable parts of Wikipedia's history in the Wikipedia namespace, using on-wiki primary sources.
 * There could be a new Wikimedia project ("history.wikimedia.org") for documenting what happens in the various Wikimedia projects. This project would necessarily have its own rules, and it could serve as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.
 * We might have a team for communications with the press, vaguely similar to OTRS. Reporters like to ring people up to double-check their stories. In the case of Wikipedia their usual strategies break down, which can lead to misunderstandings. We have meta:Communications committee for dealing with the press. (00:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
 * We could have special rules for articles that are related to Wikipedia.
 * -Hans Adler (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Time to make a comment since there are some issues which I'm probably the only person in a position to comment on, and others which I think might benefit from comment. I thought it better if I comment here rather than on the main AfD page. I'm very grateful to several editors for the way they have fairly edited the article; however it seems to me that there are insuperable problems with the article.

Firstly, even if there were masses of accurate sources, the whole thing would still be a massive self-reference. True it is that major Wikipedia issues that broke out into the mainstream media do have articles, but it is still something to be avoided, and this issue has barely intruded into the mainstream media anyway.

Second, what exactly is the "controversy" of the title? A controversy is a matter under dispute but no-one is disputing that a prior account ought to have been disclosed. In the article as it is at present the main controversy appears to be the disputed interpretation of edits to one particular page, with one newspaper's interpretation placed against the primary source. However skilfully that is presented (and it is very skillful), it is still original research.

One interesting issue to come out of this is that we need to conclude that a reliable source which contains a manifest error is not actually reliable. The idea that an article must say X because a usually reliable source has said X when we know the truth is Y is ludicrous. "We must get the article right" as someone once said; using reliable sources is a means to that end, not the end itself. That's a policy debate perhaps better taken elsewhere.

Finally, I should say that friends locally (whether from my party or from other political parties) see it all as a joke, embarrassing yes, but really mainly amusing. I point that out not to minimise the internal aspects, but just to point out that it's easy to lose sight of how important our internal bureaucracy is to the outside world. On one of the websites critical of Wikipedia, I have seen members occasionally comment "It's only a bloody website" to remind everyone not to take the personality clashes so seriously. I'm not sure that doesn't show a better sense of proportion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sam, haven't you used multiple accounts at the same time? Also, I looked through your edit history a bit, and I found several articles where you made a substantial effort to include and expand on controversies related to political figures in political parties other than your own. I didn't see any article on labour politicians that focused so prominently on negative aspects, but I didn't look through all your contributions, are there some? Do you think there are conflict of interest issues involved in your editing here? Can you list all of the accounts and anon accounts that you've used so your editing can be properly investigated? I think answers to those questions would be helpful in sorting the matter out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that all of that is necessary for deciding the disposition of this article. However Sam Blacketer is scheduled to have an RfA in a few days, and I'd expect him to provide that kind of information to the community then.   Will Beback    talk    03:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. But Sam seems to be suggesting that there isn't really a controversy and he didn't really do anything wrong and that the media got it all wrong. So my questions relate to whether that's accurate or not. If the media didn't get it quite right we can use editorial discretion to be more accurate, but some seem to want us provide a defense or to side with Sam by deleting his article and coverage of the controversy. If he was in the right all along I'd like to see the evidence for that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason why reliable sources have that reputation is that they correct their errors. If the suject of news reporting claims errors in that reporting then it's incumbent on them to contact the publications to ask for a correction.   Will Beback    talk    04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that two issues here have become confused. The first is the non-disclosure of previous accounts, which was wrong. However the main press coverage has been on a second issue which is the implication that a supporter of one political party ought not to take any part in editing articles about members of another. This is emphatically and explicitly untrue; none of my edits to David Cameron or any other page broke any Wikipedia policy or guidance whatsoever. I dispute everything ChildofMidnight says about this and note that he does not support his allegations with any links. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is your role in the Labour Party merely a "supporter"? Are you not familiar with the WP:COI guideline, which calls upon people to disclose their conflicts of interest? Is the right reaction to being accused of biased to create an alternate account? Is it appropriate to run for sysop under a new account without revealing that your main account had been de-sysoped? You say here that you've been misquoted, but I don't see any "diff" showing where you've tried to correct the record. You seem to be saying that there was no real problem in what you did and that it was just an embarrassing escapade on a website. This episode has brought disrepute to the project and to the ArbCom. I don't care whether we have an article on it or not, but we should keep a record of it within the project as a lesson to others.   Will Beback    talk    09:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, your comments are so confused and jumbled up that I really can't hope to reply to them. There is no conflict of interest in my editing David Cameron. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me start with the first question. You say it's OK for a party supporter to edit articles about members of the opposing party. Is your role in the Labour Party just a "supporter", or is it something substantially more than that?  Will Beback   talk    09:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than in municipal affairs in the City of Westminster (an area which is not engaged here), then all that matters is that I am a party supporter. I am not directly involved in anything to do with David Cameron. At this point it is worthwhile pointing out that NPOV acknowledges that everyone has a point of view; we simply leave our own opinions at the door when we come in, as I did. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is what Jamie Welham and Nina Lakhani report that you said:
 * "I can be a partisan when I want to be, but I can look at things objectively. I created different user names because people found out I was a Labour councilor and kept harassing me, accusing me of being biased. Getting a new name was a form of defence. I have never written to self-serve but I admit it was wrong, although an innocent oversight."
 * Am I correct that you say the reporters never spoke to you, and that this is a fabrication? Above, you say that there is no dispute and hence no controversy. Could you clarify whether you dispute any of the factual assertions in the reporting of this matter?    Will Beback    talk    11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jamie Welham is a reporter on the local paper, the West End Extra. I spoke to him for three quarters of an hour, during which I had to introduce him to Wikipedia from first principles. Now I simply can't remember everything I said to him, so I may have said "innocent oversight" about something, but not about what the Daily Mail attached it to, and I could not speak to them for the reasons explained below. Could I clarify whether I dispute any of the factual assertions? Seems to me that the only response to that is to echo Professor Joad and say that "it all depends what you mean by 'factual assertions'." Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, to clarify, you don't deny the quotaiton above, including the part where you describe using multiple accounts at the same time as an "innocent oversight"? What part of their factual reporting do you dispute, if any?   Will Beback    talk    11:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The quotation given as several continuous sentences in fact comes from the replies to several separate questions. I can't be sure whether I said "innocent oversight", but if I did it wasn't about the decision to use a literary pseudonym unconnected to a real life identity which was quite deliberate. I do dispute absolutely any suggestion that the accounts as they were actually used broke WP:SOCK either in its letter or in its spirit, if anyone has ever made such a suggestion which they don't appear ever to have done. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I understand your reply, the only definite dispute you have with the reporting is that a quotation was taken out of context.
 * Regarding WP:SOCK, am I correct that you believe you didn't violate it? Let's review some of the potential violations. You used two accounts at the same time in the same field, and even on the same articles. While in RfAR, seeking a position of trust in the community, you hid an extensive block log and a previous de-sysoping. You ran for the ArbCom just two weeks after you stopped using one of the accounts, and then joined in discussions concerning users who'd had conflicts with the undisclosed accounts. Reasonable people might believe that you violated the letter or spirit of WP:SOCK. However our opinions on that don't matter for this article.
 * More relevant to this article, and sourceable, is that you used sock accounts at the same time as you were blocking other accounts for sock puppetry, and as an ArbCom member you were voting to ban people for sock puppetry just a few months after using a sock account yourself. If it wasn't an "innocent oversight" then what kind of oversight was it? ;)   Will Beback    talk    12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You evidently do not understand my reply. Now you are taking what I say out of context. I was referring to creating a new account for ordinary article editing and nothing more. You obviously disagree but "in the same field" is not good enough to make it stick. I would like you now to identify any articles edited between 12 December 2006 and 10 November 2007 by both accounts where both made substantial contributions. From my check, about the only one which really comes close is Helen Duncan, and that is a fairly uncontroversial article from outside "the field". Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS you can use this tool if it will help. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I still don't understand. Are you saying that you created "Sam Blacketer" as "a new account for ordinary article editing and nothing more"? But that can't be right because you did much more with that account, running for Admin and ArbCom without revealing your other accounts. And you're saying that that isn't a violation of WP:SOCK?
 * Above you wrote that there's no controversy because there's no dispute that the accounts should have been disclosed. If they should have been disclosed then why weren't they?   Will Beback    talk    20:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, is this a trial? Is any of this in any way pertinent to the disposition of this article? Nathan  T 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer is asserting that the reporting on this subject is unreliable, and that there is no controversy because there is no dispute over anything. But he does not seem to know of any significant error by the press but he disputes their assertion that he violated any project policies. Those issues are relevnt to the disposition of the article.   Will Beback    talk    19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia logs and equity (Rock-paper-scissors)
It seems to me that no consensus is being reached, and that opinion is swinging this way and that with rapid changes in approach to writing the article.

This is perhaps because what we're looking at here (especially with regard to the use of Wikipedia logs in articles where previously used in reliable sources) is something at present novel, falling under so many of the rules and guidelines (both for and against, ie sometimes conflicting), and without authoritative precedent.

To my mind, it is not something that can really be adequately resolved by recourse to policy, specifically the letter of the law, with the notable exception of WP:IAR, but needs to take into account what is equitable to all parties: the spirit of the law and the ability to "step outside the box". Some of the difference in opinion seems to concern the letter and the spirit of the law.

If we allow analysis and interpretation of Wikipedia logs (since reliable sources have already referred to WP edits), then we run the danger of misrepresenting or selectively presenting that data (WP:OR), as well as being enabled to write an article which is fair to all parties.

If we allow examples of the data to be presented, without analysis or interpretation or even (strictly speaking) description, then we run the danger that we can neither fairly represent all sides of the issue, nor argue that the article should be deleted since the sources have been shown to be unreliable, and hence the article fails notability and verifiability. How else could we do that unless we take the logs as "reliable sources", which leads us to an apparent paradox (which may be resolved or sidestepped using WP:IAR). And how can we say "The sources have not reached accurate conclusions ... which isn't good enough for a BLP" without this evidence or without our own, subjective interpretation of the raw data?

If we disallow the use of Wikipedia logs altogether, then does this fulfil the bottom line: does this exclusion make the article more or less equitable?

Do we need to specifically define policy for the use of Wikipedia logs, to get that thorny issue out of the way? And if so, how much leeway is to be given to such exceptional cases? Esowteric (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Presumably Wikipedia logs are reliable primary sources. So a dif or a log is a primary source to a particular event. But we are severely restricted in what we can do with them per WP:OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite. I invite those who recoil in horror at using WP logs in an article on a Wikipedia topic to imagine the article was about a notable scandal on another top-ten user-edited website X with publicly available logs. On what basis would we exclude X's logs from being primary sources? Disembrangler (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a joke
Well this all seems like it was a bit of a joke. If the article was going to be deleted even with no consensus to do so, why not just speedy it from the start? There was nothing remotely resembling consensus reached during this discussion. Unitanode 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually -- about 2 to 1 for deletion. Collect (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, so we're voting now? And even if we were, that nonsense about "rebooting" scrambled the counts all to hell. Unitanode  00:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just run the numbers and discounting repeated votes it comes down to about 79 delete to 26 Keep though this could be off. The exact numbers however did not bare the whole I have discounted the merge counts completely in this count as there is nothing stopping the content being added to a the article about . There is no stopping this content being added to another article and I will happily get content for someone to insert into an article so long as there isnt any undue weight towards this story, although with the limited information, it is unlikely that undue weight could occur. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 01:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sedon, how often do you close deletion discussions? You should be aware that merges generally count as keeps for purposes of AfD totals. I count 7 merges. That brings the total as a pure count to 79 delete to 33 keep, which is still a clear consensus for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I found it interesting how quickly deletes piled up one after another at various points in the discussion. There's no way to prove that anything untoward happened, but I just found that interesting. Unitanode  02:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can take it to WP:DRV if you feel the close was inappropriate, though I'd suggest you bring better arguments than those you've posted above. MastCell Talk 03:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not participate in this AfD, but it's also worth noting that two other admins mistakenly closed this early (not realizing that it had recently been decided to run AfDs for 7 rather than 5 days), and they also determined that the consensus was for "delete" before reverting their own closes. That fact is not insignificant when thinking about whether Seddon came to the right conclusion here or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, just because you voted keep does not mean that delete voters, which outnumber around 2 to 1, do not have valid arguments. As noted in the AFD, just as you find the delete reasons weak, others, such as myself, find the keep arguments weak. The vast majority believe the article should not exist and the reasoning, whether you agree or not, is based in our policies and guidelines. So as MastCell points out, if you disagree with the close, take it to DRV. But your reasoning needs to be better than "I think that the 2/3 of participants who voted delete should be ignored because I don't agree with their reasoning, and I think that the fact that there are several in succession is suspect... but not the several keeps in succession. Those are all valid." لenna vecia  04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the arguments on both sides were pretty good, actually. That's why my close, which was reverted because the AfD time rules changed, was based pretty much purely on which argument had more support, as the arguments were of equal quality in relation to applying Wikipedia policies. Daniel (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, in the end it IS a vote, if the arguments presented are of "equal quality"? I would think that in a discussion, if arguments are of "equal quality" then that means there is "no consensus", but I'll definitely defer to those with more knowledge of this process than I currently have. As for DRV, I have no desire to be educated in yet another Wikipedia process, especially if it bears the slightest resemblance to this one. Unitanode  11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Examining rationales, of the 26 "Keep" opinions, several invoked "IAR", a "per" or so, one "He's a politician" and a bunch just said it was in the papers as a scandal or showed corruption or the like. Where multiple "Keep" opinions then got changed to "deletes" it is clear that those rationales were found to be weak by those who originally were giving the benefit of the doubt to the article. The "delete" opinions primarily relied on BLP policy, and not on IAR which is a weak rationale at best. BLP is quite clear here, and the overwhelming majority of opinions used BLP or "not news" as the rationale. IMHO, therefore, the points were neither of "equal quality" nor of equal weight. Collect (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP has nothing to do with this article, and even many who wanted it deleted agree with that. The only delete rationale that makes ANY sense is NOTNEWS, and I find even that quite unconvincing. Unitanode  12:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many other people don't bother to read what WP:BLP actually says. BLP has a special status for which the principle "descriptive, not prescriptive" doesn't fully apply. BLP was introduced to change our actual practice because that was found to need correcting. The following principle,
 * This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. WP:BLP, 4th paragraph,
 * is not going to change without a wide discussion and probably strong opposition from the Wikimedia Foundation. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You really are the smartest guy in the room, aren't you? Your towering intellect even dwarfs those editors who actually agreed that the article should be deleted but disagreed with your faulty BLP rationale.  Unitanode  12:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are confused again. I don't think anyone said that WP:BLP doesn't apply to this article. It most certainly does. That's indisputable fact. WP:BLP1E does not and cannot apply to this article. Important distinction there. لenna  vecia  12:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was mistaken about the distinction drawn by some between BLP in general and BLP1E in particular. Thanks for correcting me. However, HA insists below that even BLP1E has some bearing on this. While I disagree that BLP itself has anything to do with this discussion, I think there's pretty broad consensus here that BLP1E has nothing to do with this article. Unitanode  12:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. In my post, BLP1E only occurs as part of a literal quotation from WP:N. I did not claim that David Boothroyd falls under the description "individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E)". But given that all reliable sources that talk about him in any detail are about this one event, he certainly comes close. That's why I left it in. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability (NTEMP) is what Hans quoted that mentions BLP1E. Invoking BLP1E in this case is appropriate, and I'll explain why. Basically, BLP1E reads that if a person is notable for only one event, rather than have a biography you should have an article on the event. That's what we have here which is why BLP1E can't apply. NTEMP reads that events must enjoy more than a short burst of news coverage in order to be considered notable, particularly for individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E). So that applies, as this controversy enjoyed only a short burst of coverage (could change with time) and this is a matter of the subject being known for one event. لenna  vecia  13:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Modified close?
Is it acceptable, after having erroneously closed this as "Delete per X" -- and actually having deleted the article per X -- to then modify the closing statement when it's pointed out that the original close was faulty? This all is making less and less sense to me as it goes along. Unitanode 11:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any technical problems with the closure, it is going to stand because:
 * The article fails WP:N per WP:NTEMP:
 * [I]t takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E).
 * Almost everything in the article fails WP:V per WP:REDFLAG:
 * Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: [...]
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community [...] Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. [...]
 * If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons [...]
 * (The relevant community is Wikipedia, and its prevailing view is that the papers got almost everything wrong.)
 * Without the creative sourcing, which was violently opposed largely by the same spoiled kids who wanted this article to stay, the article fails WP:BLP:
 * [Biographical material about a living person] must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States [...].
 * Even with the creative sourcing, the article still fails WP:BLP:
 * Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link.
 * (The sources are questionable and of dubious value because we know how misleading they are. An internal Wikipedia story was made to fit into the standard media pattern of unfair competition among politicians, with which it had nothing to do. This is original research, but we are supposed to do original research to properly evaluate the quality of sources.)
 * So much for policies. Note that BLP makes clear that it applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. And the guideline WP:EL says: Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP [...]. This clarifies that we cannot even link to the defective news stories.
 * Short version: The article must be deleted per 3 separate policies. If you want to continue beating the dead horse, take it to DRV. Otherwise get over it. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's certainly your view. And I find it more than a bit ironic that you refer to others as "spoiled kids." You of all people conducted yourself in a bombastic, highly opinionated manner in this AfD. Where do you get the nerve to call other people "spoiled kids"? I have much respect for many people who were on the opposing side of this discussion. Based upon the way you have behaved here, you're not one of them. Unitanode  12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for hurting your delicate feelings. Those who like to trample on the public reputations of others are usually very sensitive to attacks on their own egos. It was ruthless of me not to take this into account. I apologise for my innocent oversight. Which word do you object to specifically – "spoiled" or "kid"? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't hurt my feelings in any way. I find your attacks specious and more than a bit ironic, but hurtful? No. Unitanode  13:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we please move on? oO -- Luk  talk 12:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, Unitanode, it's time to let it go. You've been asking questions and people have not only been accurately answering them, but they've been quoting and linking the relevant policies for you, so that you may verify their answers and educate yourself on policies you clearly don't know. Instead, you've opted to go with incessant whining and throwing of insults because you didn't get your way. Childish behavior, to say the least. If you want to contest the close, that's what we have DRV for. Otherwise, let it go. لenna  vecia  13:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm finished with it now. I don't have any inclination to take it to DRV, as I don't feel like learning a new process, and Seddon's close isn't nearly as bad as it first appeared to me. Also, where have I been "throwing off insults because I didn't get my way"? HA called those who disagreed with HIM "spoiled kids", but (hopefully) I've never sunk that low. Unitanode  13:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)