Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 19

ICB2
Various comments from User:PeanutCheeseBar and replies to same are reproduced here. They were cluttering up the main page.

Response to Zoe:
 * Comment You are incorrect Zoe; sickmyduck, .Kiw.Da.Wabbit., and PsychoCrash all signed their tags at the end of their respective votes, and being able to discern unique IP addresses from each other in the history could demonstrate that they're not all the same person. Even with the three delete votes, the three aforementioned signed ones should effectively nullify and counterbalance the delete votes placed.  JIP acknowledged that these were true votes, despite the fact that he did not like the source of the votes.  In addition, the content and context of the statements of the "Do Not Delete" votes more than adequately displayed how some of the users that voted "Do Not Delete" felt about the imminent deletion.  User:PeanutCheeseBar|(talk) 21:36, 19 August 2006

Response to Fan-1967:
 * Comment You are also incorrect Fan-1967; sickmyduck noted that the site is well known, .Kiw.Da.Wabbit. noted that there was an obvious vendetta to try and have the page taken down, and the second-to-last "Do Not Delete" noted that the removal of the page would demonstrate bias. Furthermore, I made the case for having this page undeleted, and I also noteed the conditions under which the page was deleted were in contradiction of a few of Wikipedia's rules for deletion.  The issue isn't simply why the page should be re-created, but why was it deleted under pretenses that are against Wikipedia's own rules for deletion.  By your own logic as to "justification", the first two "Delete" votes gave no reason for why the page should have been deleted, and thus should have been counted as "null".  When Allen3 made the note that the site did not generate an Alexa index, he did so under false pretenses; the site did and STILL does register on Alexa, and as noted on the Alexa_Internet page, the only way that Alexa can track traffic is through users who have installed some of their software (which is not evenly dispersed and in a minority), thus demonstrating bias.  I've clearly indicated the factors by which the page was unjustly removed, and you have not taken the time to observe them.[User:PeanutCheeseBar|PeanutCheeseBar]] 22:29, 19 August 2006
 * No. You are incorrect. sickmyduck claimed the site ws well-known, but offered nothing to verify the claim. Claims of a vendetta or bias are irrelevant; the article's merits alone are the issue, not any (again unverified) claims about the motivation of the deletion. Therefore none of those votes have merit. You claim that the AFD violated Wikipedia rules. Clearly you have not bothered to learn them. Fan-1967 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Fan-1967, you obviously haven't reviewed the comments by the past admins who have looked over this; part of what was "unverifiable" were customs and facts about the board, things which are generally unknown about the community unless you have either read the article or are a member of the community. These were maintained by members of the community for benefit of the community and those wishing to join, and for you to damn them as "unverifiable" without making the appropriate effort of researching the site shows that you invested little or no effort in really taking consideration of the aforementioned facts when making this decision.  Seeing as how you have done nothing to go to the site and prove that the merits are NOT true, then you clearly cannot comment on the appropriateness or validity of these merits.  The major issue at hand was not the merit of the article, but that the page was removed illegally, and regardless of whatever content the page may or may not have had, it does not excuse those who made false/uninformed cases or simply said "Delete" without justification.  By your aforementioned logic, if the some of the "Do Not Delete" votes were unjustified, then what exactly were the first two "Delete" votes?  They did not specify any justification, and thus should have held no weight in the matter.  You seem to be ignorant of the existence of the aforementioned customs, rules, and other facets of the board that I have previously described; the reason for the page's existence was to both keep a record of these customs and rules, and to inform those who don't know about or understand them.  As such, unless you actively participate, you cannot say one way or the other what the customs are and the correctness of the description; instead, you've opted to take the easy way out by simply saying they're unverifiable, when the page has always had a link to the community. PeanutCheeseBar 03:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Still, you haven't bothered to learn our rules. Verification must come from Reliable Sources. Without independent verification from third-party sources, it cannot remain here. Fan-1967 03:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I understand the rules quite clearly; you do not understand that the information comes from within the site itself, of which you must be a member to see these customs and rules. If you are a third-party, you cannot dictate what these customs or rules are in order verify them, as a "third party" would not technically be a member of the community, and thus could not verify the claims as such.  People that are not part of the community are not able to view the content of the site, hence the need to join the community.  The page simply noted what customs and standards existed so as to give new members advance notice of what is to be expected.  By your logic, the Scientology page could not exist because the tenets of the religion of Scientology are either based in copyrighted works that cannot be posted on Wikipedia, and deeper secrets or revelations about the religion itself (such as the section on the Scientology page titled "Operating Thetan levels and the Xenu incident") cannot be verified unless you are high enough on the ladder to be taught about these deeper secrets.  Since nobody that is not a Scientologist has access to these secrets, this section should not exist because there are no independent sources by which to verify it, as only Scientology members would have knowledge of it.  PeanutCheeseBar 03:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there are huge numbers of third-party sources on Scientology. There are not on ICB2. That's it. You claim you understand the rules, then argue that they shouldn't apply to you. Doesn't work that way. Nothing you post will change that. Fan-1967 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Nowhere did I say that they shouldn't apply to me; I'm saying that there's a double-standard that is prevalent on that particular article, and it even says within the article that "Because Scientology is a mystery religion, the more closely guarded and esoteric teachings imparted at these higher levels may not always be entirely consistent with its entry-level teachings." In addition, "Therefore, while knowledge of Xenu and Body Thetans is said to be crucial to the highest level church teachings, it cannot be regarded as a core belief of rank and file Scientologists. Such information is not published in commonly available materials, and as such may not be part of what the vast majority of ordinary Scientologists believe."  As I stated before, you cannot know these things without being a Scientologist, due to the vast amount of secrecy that the religion maintains; any outside or independent commentary is simply speculation, because there is no way to confirm what higher-level Scientologists know.  As such, you cannot be a Scientologist and be independent, and therefore a double-standard is maintained because this section is allowed to exist based on resources that can claim to know, but to dispense them to those members who are not higher level Scientologists would be in violation of the tenets of Scientology (who are incredibly lawsuit-happy), and will engage in court battles to protect these "secrets".  At the very least, it's hypocrisy, and you're deviating from the main issue.  PeanutCheeseBar 04:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is only one main issue: There are no reliable third-party sources on ICB2. Period. Nothing else matters. Fan-1967 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I took issue with the fact that the page was deleted inappropriately, and you're trying to completely change what my issue (and basis for this challenge to the deletion) was. You've stepped over the line of telling me what is right and wrong, and you've moved into the domain of trying to tell me what to think.  Every (weak) point that you have made, I have kindly indicated the fault or inaccuracy with your point, and demonstrated other examples of why what you say doesn't hold true.  I pointed out a glaring example of a double-standard that you'd allow to keep existing, and yet you cannot comprehend the fact that within a certain article I have indicated, there exists information that may be independent, but due to the nature of the religion named in the article, is quite possibly speculation (not fact).  Unless you join the ICB2, you're not fit to comment on what is and what is not appropriate to post on the ICB2 page.  The same can be said of any religion or anything that must be experienced firsthand, and even then those things should be held subject to deletion due to the fact that there cannot be an unbiased independent source, as you would have to actively participate in order to gain any knowledge or understanding of the concept material.  PeanutCheeseBar 04:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Scientology article has 92 citations from external sources. You have none. Fan-1967 05:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to JIP:
 * Comment So what is wrong with them having only edited the AfD page? Given the fact that they actually showed up to say SOMETHING, it shows that they're standing up in support of something they believe should have remained.  Granted, some of them may have chosen distinctly uncouth ways of voicing disappointment, but that does not mean that you can discriminate against the valid votes, and identify a group of people by the actions of a few; to do so would constitute bias.  Nobody has bothered to address the reason or justification why the first two "Delete" votes (which didn't give any justification) should have counted over any of the "Do Not Delete" votes, as some of those had justification or explanation(contrary to what Fan-1967 states).  In address to Fan-1967, he completely ignored the whole point I just laid out for him; he's claiming that all parts of the Scientology article are completely valid, despite the fact that it clearly stated in a section I quoted from the article that some of the information was not available in commonly published materials, and that those teachings may not fall in line with those higher up in Scientology.  Ignorance of what I have taken the time to give you is demonstrates that little thought or consideration was given to the matter, and as such, you're not really morally fit to rule on the matter if you don't read the conversation.  It's right there in front of you; I just don't understand why you're so biased and oblivious to something that was given to you.  PeanutCheeseBar 08:23, 20 August 2006

Response to Geogre:
 * Comment Fan, overall I have to say that your behavior and approach to this has been extremely unprofessional, and quite unbecoming of what I would expect from a Wikipedia admin. You have consistently demonstrated both disrespect and ignorance, with the latter being made exceptionally obvious due to your refusal to acknowledge the hypocrisies that exist with both the articles and with your argument; you wouldn't even sign your own name to the last comment you made, which demonstrates to me that you're not any more capable or willing to accept the criticisms that I have issued towards you earlier than you are now.  You still have yet to answer my questions or give me logical reasoning as to why you can allow such a double-standard to exist. PeanutCheeseBar 19:37, 20 August 2006


 * My apologies for forgetting to sign. As for the rest, you have offered no valid criticisms, and have displayed nothing but contempt for Wikipedia policies throughout. If you expected Wikipedia editors to allow you to post an uncited, unverified, vanity entry, you were mistaken. Here's my signature. Fan-1967 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I hate to say it, but I don't believe that you're sincere.  I have posted plenty of criticisms, but I cannot force you to read them or take them into consideration; with each criticism posted, you completely ignored what I said and the evidence I laid out before you, and have shown me nothing but disrespect.  The only contempt that I have right now with the Wikipedia policies is because they were not applied correctly and impartially.  The contempt I have for you stems from both your consistent ignorance and your disrespect.  I'm willing to bet you find this whole thing quite humorous, and you enjoy demonstrating the ignorance and disrespect that you can display without fear of punishment or retribution. You have consistently refused answer my questions and address my points, nor have you addressed the hypocrisies that I have shown you; you've made no effort to try to view the ICB2 to do "independent" research, and it's caused me to lose faith in just how credible and reliable this system is, because apparently some of the people who uphold it aren't doing what they're supposed to, norare they working with the users.  PeanutCheeseBar 19:55, 20 August 2006


 * Comment There comes a time when AGF conflicts with DNF. That time has passed, and continuing this is pointless. Fan-1967 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentThe only reason why continuing this is pointless is the fact that you've had several reasons and chances to explain or try to disprove the evidence I presented, and you've virtually snubbed me on every count. The issue does not close because you think you are right and someone else is not; you need to demonstrate why my points are incorrect, why two unjustified "Delete" votes held more weight than ANY "Do Not Delete" votes, or otherwise you'll just be subject to more criticism (which you obviously cannot accept), as you keep trying to take this off on a tangent and belay the main point.PeanutCheeseBar 20:05, 20 August 2006


 * Comment As I stated before, there were more "Do Not Delete" votes than there were "Delete" votes, regardless of whether or not the users were registered.  Since non-registered users have their IP addresses displayed, you can tell that the votes would be unique.  However, since non-registered users are able to edit articles in much the same fashion that registered users are, discounting their votes (which state their beliefs or reasons) based on their registration status is ludicrous, as if what they felt is not important (implied by discounting their votes), then non-registered users should not be able to edit articles at all.  It is a tad bit presumptuous to eliminate user votes based on registration status when they still can still be uniquely identified, and retain the same ability to edit as registered users (save for some articles).  However, seeing as how the majority of the articles on Wikipedia are not restricted to registered/non-new users, then it would be severely detrimental to the community as a whole simply because the opinions of users who do not wish to register do not count.  Those unregistered people can contribute just the same as those who are registered, and unless you plan on taking away the ability for unregistered users to edit, then they should retain the ability to vote and have their votes counted, as they can be uniquely identified (as opposed to people who register with multiple accounts, and conceal their IP).  PeanutCheeseBar 23:07, 20 August 2006
 * DRV does not set policy. Additionally, I doubt anyone would wish to change that policy, as account holders with no editing history will also be discounted, and both for excellent reasons.  AfD isn't about anyone's desire.  As I just said, it's about our policies and guidelines, and not anyone's desires, including ours.  Account holders with an established history are the only ones who count because we can be more certain that they have experienced and abide by our policies and that they understand our policies.  Anonymous voters, on the other hand, are shipped in by posting a link to one's website.  They come in, have no knowledge of what Wikipedia does, vote as they were told, and go back.  These particular votes showed all the hallmarks of participants on the subject board and no evidence at all that they knew what the deletion guideline was.  Honestly, we really can't be explaining, long hand, all of our policies on DRV.  We just assess whether things have obeyed them or not. Geogre 12:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)