Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sci.psychology.psychotherapy

Sci.psychology.psychotherapy and the vandalism of one of the members of Counter Vandalism Unit

 * Moved from Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit -- Cool CatTalk 16:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User NaconKantari of this unit and some collaborators converged with incredible haste on the fledgling article Sci.psychology.psychotherapy, deleting the original article multiple times, recommending it for deletion, and then writing that the article is being monitored by the Countervandalism Unit (all within the span of a couple hours). The article is well-written and well-researched and its facts are empirical and verifiable by clicking on the links to the Google Groups (i.e. links to the news group plus links to messages by five regular patrons of the news group). In no way does the article resemble a flame war and it was composed by a social psychologist. However, the effort to delete the article itself reflects an obsessiveness and hypersensitivity that violates conventional editorial practices in Wikipedia.

Evidence:

(1) the article was deleted wholesale and replaced by a "stub" that was labeled the "main article." Any effort to restore the stub was designated "vandalism." The so-called "editors" should have qualified, trimmed, or edited the diction of the article or set up a discussion page. But this was never done. The article was deemed "kookery," which is a designated used by Usenetters who gang-stalk sources of unconventional wisdom in news groups.

(2) Only after the article was restored a few times did the editors decide that a recommendation for deletion was the appropriate course of action.

(3) A comparison of Sci.psychology.psychotherapy with a related article about another news group would reveal that both are composed in the same NPOV and verifiable format. The only difference is that Alt.usenet.kooks inappropriately slanders individuals by identifying them by their real names. Usenetters ganged up to protect Alt.usenet.kooks from both deletion and modification (i.e. purging the names of the individuals). Yet the Sci.psychology.psychotherapy article WILL BE DELETED while Alt.usenet.kooks is protected, all by the same group of anonymous Usenet gangbangers posing as Wikipedia editors. And Sci.psychology.psychotherapy WILL BE DELETED (or altered beyond recognition) even after 4 or more individuals weigh in to claim strong support for the original version.

(4) When all the dust settles, the creator of the article and those who fought to restore it, will be known as "vandals" while those who truly vandalized the article by deleting it without due process, will be known as Wikipedia editors and, in one case, member of the countervandalism unit.

All this nonsense is being screen captured for a report on Wikipedia quality and credibility for review by a committee of journalists. No one will be able to delete the report.


 * All that I did was add a tag on the article, [], and then voice my opinion that the article be deleted, []. --NaconKantari 05:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said in the the AfD, this looks a lot like WP:NOR to me. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for this.  –Abe Dashiell

(t/c) 05:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you will only weaken your case if you blank the votes in the AfD article. Don't do that again.  For ANY reason.  –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, Honorable "Abe Dashiell", is Wikipedia a place for Alt.usenet.kooks? If we set aside a moment the discussion of the verififiability of sci.psychology.psychotherapy (and iy is just that), let us consider that the sci.psychology.psychotherapy article is just as empirical, verifiable, and NPOV as Alt.usenet.kooks. And unlike Alt.usenet.kooks, sci.psychology.psychotherapy does not engage in ritual slander by identifying individuals by name, and then entertaining a forum for stalkers who want to harass these individuals in the Discussion page for complaining about having been slandered. The question is, is Wikipedia a place for you? To ignore the issues associated with Alt.usenet.kooks while moderating sci.psychology.psychotherapy with extraordinary efficiency, is suspicious.


 * I did no such thing. I did not blank any Afd page. Just where did you come up with that?! Or is this a misinterpretation of a technical label. I did re-copy and re-paste the contents in their entirety because I received a message that the contents had been altered while I was editing the page and would have lost my edits if I had not done otherwise. But all comments remained intact during the process of my effort to preserve my new edits.
 * I was referring to this edit, which was corrected by Naconkantari. It seems reasonable that it may have been a mistake, however.  In any case, having looked at Alt.usenet.kooks, the only potential problem I see with that article is it does name names.  I'm not entirely sure that's necessary within the context of Wikipedia, but it otherwise describes what that newsgroup is.  Furthermore, there's absolutely no question it's one of the most significant groups in the alt hierarchy and has been for more than 20 years.  There can be no doubt that it has a place within this encyclopedia.  I don't believe the same can be said for Sci.psychology.psychotherapy, not if it's being used as a platform to attack the subject of another article. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Naconkantari" bares a striking resemblance to the aliases of two "other" individuals who deleted the article wholesale within an hour of Naconkantari's appearance: "Alynna Kasmira" and "Karada" (the former of which reports being a hacker on her User page). It's one hell of a coincidence if these are truly three distinct entities.
 * If an Administrator does an IP check on those two accounts, they will discover that they are not mine. --NaconKantari 06:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)