Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shefa Network

Commentary (verging on personal attacks) removed from project page

 * Comment. Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle came in after RK canvassed six users and a Wikiproject page complaining of persecution.  A rapid nomination for deletion is hardly bad faith when the article is of such low quality, obvious bias and exaggerations, and given the author's past history.  It did not take me more than a few minutes to find that this "group" is nonexistent on the web and that its "journal" is not present in major university libraries.  20K website hits goes more to show obscurity than to show notability. NTK 15:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's kind of you to wave some sort of accusation at me. However the fact that I came here after I had my attention drawn to the article has no bearing on my views.  I see nothing wrong with RK's drawing my attention to the article.  I had no need to take any action - I could have ignored his note entirely.  I am sure he felt I might be interested.  I was.  And I have placed my thoughts here.  I have also placed thoughts in the article's talk page.  I looked at the author's past history.  A 12 month thing in April 2005 expired, surely?  So raking that up now seems to me to be rhetoric.  Please stick to the article, not the personalities. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I accused you of nothing, I only pointed out the fact that you were canvassed&mdash;you on the other hand accused me of bad faith. And yes, it is considered problematic for users to spam talk pages in order to "save" their articles from deletion.  I personally avoid voting on nominations I have found out through canvassing, especially when it is the author or the nominator who is canvassing.  As to the parole issue, you will note that 12-month period is reset every time it is violated, and in any event personal attacks are never permissible.  ArbCom rulings are hardly irrelevant, especially given that this user has previously been banned from editing Judaism-related articles for an entire year. To ignore that would be to make ArbCom toothless, and ArbCom is the one tool, if sometimes ineffectual, to protect WP from persistently abusive editors. NTK 15:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, whatever route I came here by, my opinion is my opinion. The matter in hand is the article.  Please stick to discussing that.  It is not rhetoric that keeps or deletes articles. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

NTK, stick to the discussion at hand, and stop commenting on RK. Thanks, Tom e rtalk 16:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * TShilo12, please do not remove legitimate discussion on AfD pages. This is highly inappropriate. NTK
 * NTK, the above discussion has nothing to do with the article, and therefore is not legitimate discussion. Its contents are also highly inappropriate, as I've pointed out to you on your talk page as well as in the edit summaries where I removed it from the AfD page itself.  Tom e rtalk  17:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Questions of vote-stacking and the good faith of participants here are relevant for the closing admin, who has to weigh the value of the comments on all sides.  &middot; rodii &middot;  17:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course. But would the closing admin not view the talk page as well? At the moment the page looks like election hustings.  Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) One would hope so. I'm just disagreeing with Tomer's claim that these points aren't relevant to the AfD, and his refactoring of this section to the talk page. I would point out the section in WP:SPAM on internal spamming. RK is clearly pushing it here. (I'm casting no aspersions, whatever aspersions are, on your arguments, Tim. :)  &middot; rodii &middot;  17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's cool. I know you aren't casting aspersions. I'm simply still learning, so I asked :)  The main thing I have learnt is that consensus is a good thing.  And sticking to the article (assuming the topic is itself notable) is the very best thing to do with AfD etc.  If we none of us had differing views then the world would be a very regimented place.  I tend towards a view "the greater the rhetoric the worse the point being made".  In this one I am starting to lose track, however :).  Fiddle Faddle 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

note for those reviewing what's going on...
This was the first comment I removed as a personal attack. It has since been put back into the AfD discussion, although my remark in the AfD discussion has not been. A quick review will indicate that, unlike the above discussion, it contained nothing worthwhile, consisting of a deliberate smear against RK with the sole, and obvious, intention of casting everything he said into doubt. Regardless of your views of RK and his editing/interaction style, this sort of commentary is completely inappropriate, and should be re-removed from the AfD discussion. Tom e rtalk 17:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's a personal attack or a "smear". It's a fact, phrased in a neutral way, and it discloses an interest on the part of RK that users might want to be aware of. (The other remark that was removed was by Crum375... was that you? I'm confused.)  &middot; rodii &middot;  17:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your behaviour is out of bounds. Tomer provided you a diff showing a clear personal attack.  Your bald-faced attempt to deny this effectively has you promoting personal attacks on me, as well as calling Tomer a liar.  If you continue to make false accusations against both of us then action may need to be taken against you. RK 14:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you looked at the correct diff? I'm not talking about the stuff at the top of this talkpage, I'm talking about what started this fracas.  If we are talking about the same diff, perhaps this diff (which is the diff I meant to provide originally) will answer your remaining questions.  Cheers, Tom e rtalk  17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at the first one you posted above, which didn't contain your comment. Your revised one clears up my confusion (though I still don't think mentioning someone's history with ArbCom is a smear or personal attack, sorry.)  &middot; rodii &middot;  18:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed that comment. I cannot see how it can possibly be appropriate to the discussion. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa has spoken. That's good enough for me.  &middot; rodii &middot;  20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, the above-pasted discussion is not the one removed by Theresa, but rather the following: NTK 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. It should also be noted that RK has been twice subject to ArbCom sanctions and is currently under a 12-month personal attack parole, which it appears to me he is yet again violating. NTK 14:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a neutral outside observer, how is he personally attacking anyone here? Crum375 15:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He has accused me, for ing the article, and PinchasC of acting in bad faith, "attacking" his group, acting groundlessly despite providing grounds, refusing to discuss the issue although he never attempted to initiate a discussion before launching these attacks, and has been canvassing User_talk: to complain about us and drum up support.  NTK 16:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the above comments, he may not have assumed good faith, I'll grant you that. And it seems to me, as the outside observer, that the lack of AGF is somewhat mutual. In any case, that is not a personal attack per se. In other words, if I say: "Foo prod'ed an article without good cause" that would not be a personal attack against Foo, only a possible lack of AGF. In any case, this lack of civility is counter-productive. Crum375 17:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Obvious attempt to delete in bad faith
I have repeatedly offered to set up interviews between Wikipedia editors and people at the Shefa Network. Tellingly, not a single person trying to delete the article has accepted this offer. They also refuse to read the sources that were given. This total refusal speaks volumes. It is especialy bizarre that while people who know nothing about this group are trying to delete it, members of all of Conservative Judaism's organizations are now working with Shefa. At this point it is no longer a matter of personal opinion. It is a now a fact that:


 * Members of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards are now contributors to Shefa
 * Members of the faculty at the movement's rabbinic seminary (Jewish Theological Seminary of America) are now contributors.
 * A growing number of rabbis from the Rabbinical Assembly are now contributors
 * Faculty from Conservative Judaism's Solomon Schechter schools are now working with Shefa.
 * Shefa Newtork has already held two conferences, and two more events are already being planned, as well as yet another journal.
 * At this very moment people from the Rabbinical Assembly are preparing for a tele-conference with multiple people from Shefa about the new Shefa websites, and coordinating with the new Conservative Judaism websites.

It is clearly obvious that this group is far more influential than dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other groups that currently have articles on Wikipedia.

The history of the delete attempt is even more telling: A handful of people started an attempt to delete this article within minutes of its creation, based upon their personal dislike of me. (These people have repeatedly refused to even discuss the issue, and have refused all attempts to give them interviews.)

It is obvious that a few people are trying to delete this article in bad faith; they are not applying that normal Wikipedia standards that we apply to all of our other articles. And they are egging on others to do the same, when those other people know literally nothing about the issue. Voting on whether or not to keep this article is of no use if some people voting are violating traditional Wikipedia standards. This is now a matter that Wikipedia administrators need to look into. RK 14:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)