Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman

The apology claim
Various other contributors discussed whether the wikipedian who made this nomination acts in good faith.

I offered this observation, where I quoted the earliest edit recorded in our nominators contribution history -- a blatant personal attack on myself, posted to my user page.

Our nominator claims that he apologized later. I suggested our nominator is mistaken, and merely thought about apologizing. Alternatively, he left a comment so guarded with equivocation I honestly didn't recognize that I was supposed to regard it as his apology.

On September 17th my talk page was hit by a serial accuser of "anti-Americanism". Yachtsman1 left a comment, with the edit summary "how to fight the fight" on the hot-headed contributor's talk page, in which he stated: "I admit the same thought has consistently crossed my mind..."

I am not "anti-American". I've started dozens of articles about admirable, heroic Americans. And, with the exception of the "right to bear arms", I admire the high principles the USA was founded on.

I believe Yachtsman1's advice to the hot-head was very bad advice, and inconsistent with at least the spirit of the wikipedia's civility policies. For consensus building civil discussion to have a chance to work wikipedia participants should abandon traditional debating tactics, and approach each discussion with a willingness to really read the counterpoints to their points; with a willingness to acknowledge errors, lapses and mistakes on their part, and acknowledge when those they disagree with, or initially disagreed with, made good points. Our goal here should be to build the best encyclopedia we can -- not to win debates. And the necessary willingness to collegially acknowledge other's good points, and incorporate them into the collaboratively arrived at article is inconsistent with Yachtsman1's advice to use debating tactics.

I think other people will understand my reluctance to accept, at face value, Yachtsman1's claim to have issued an apology that escaped my notice, given his advice to the hot-head. Geo Swan (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I advised an editor not to engage in name-calling and asked him to calm down and place his position forward cogently using debate tactics.  Geoswan then engages in victim play, that he's not anti-American, and he's  utterly shocked someone would call him such a name.  He never quite gets to the fact that I never called him such a name, those dreaded details...


 * I know, how shocking. Terrible me, I go the offender to stop calling Geoswan "anti-American" by asking him to use debate instead.


 * Geoswan's alternative appears that he would prefer hot headed responses to calm debate in answer to his positions. I think that in light of the link Geoswan has provided, others will realize that debate allows an editor to place forth his opinions that might, shockingly, differ with Geoswan's.  In this manner, perhaps Geoswan can "acknowledge errors, lapses and mistakes on [his] part, and acknowledge when those [he] disagree[s] with, or initially disagreed with, made good points."   For instance, perhaps Geoswan can admit that in providing the poster with guidance to stop calling him names, he stopped calling him names, accomplishing the goal of having the poster stop calling him names.  That perhaps he has made a serious lapse in judgment, made a mistake, and his position, as stated above, lacks merit.  A "good encyclopedia" has a variety of views, and welcomes debate, it does not serve to place the positions of a number of "like minded thinkers" as the only acceptable position be silencing healthy debate.


 * However, for those who are interested in this matter, here's the offending comment from the poster:, and Geoswan responded as follows:  .  Geoswan did create a user page for the offender asking for further comment: .  Geoswan then "invited" the offending poster to be "more specific" about his or her concerns on a page, specially created for this purpose:  .  Thus, we must accept a rather inconvenient truth.  Geoswan appears to argue that debates are unhealthy on one hand, but on the other asks the offending poster to debate him on the specifics of his allegation of anti-Americanism.  I apologize ahead of time if I find this inconsistency on the alleged "evil of debate" (debate appearing to be fine when on Geoswan's terms, but not when it serves to defy his beliefs and positions) troubling, but I do.  At law, we call this "double speak".  I think that in light of this inconsistency, other posters will understand my reluctance to accept, at face value, Geoswan's claim that the point of creating a good encyclopedia is to reach a "consensus" and not to "win a debate."


 * Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevant to the discussion?
Talk page conversations in September don't seem to have any bearing on the deletion discussion for Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman. Any rational debate on the notability of the subject has degenerated dangerously close to WP:NPOV violations. The author of the article, and the nominator for deletion are now engaged in a discussion which belongs on user talk pages, not in this deletion discussion. I hope these editors can find a way to resolve these differences without using the AfD boards as a soapbox. I also hope we don't see more of this in the other Guantanamo Bay prisoner articles up for review. New editors are watching how you deal with this situation, and may emulate your behavior in the future. Maybe it's time for a nice cup of WP:TEA?? My advice, which you are free to ignore, is that it is probably time to allow other editors to finalize these discussions. Best regards for the new year. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No argument here, OT. But I did not start this page or this particular discussion.  What you are seeing is this:  --Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)