Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles

It should be noted that the nominator and a number of commentors here were involved parties in the Arbitration involving PHG, and thus an effort to remove this material, without guidance from ArbComm, could be considered furtherance of a content dispute. COI. I will list, here, involved parties in the Arbitration, for the convenience of the closer of this debate. The Arbitration was begun by: Other editors presenting evidence in the Arbitration, appearing to be involved (that may not be an accurate judgment): --I don't have time to complete this list here, I intend to come back later, or anyone else may do it.--Abd (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (added as initiating party)
 * (added as initiating party)
 * (added as initiating party)
 * (added as initiating party)
 * (added as initiating party)
 * User:Kafka Liz (nominator)
 * To clarify, based on a comment in my Talk from Shell, this information placed here is not intended to discourage in any way the participation by any editor who was involved in the arbitration. It is merely based on my opinion that the potential conflict of interest should be declared, because otherwise it may prejudice the appearance of the debate. Theoretically, it should have no effect, because only arguments count, but, in fact, we do place some weight, sometimes, on numbers of !votes.--Abd (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * frankly I don't think it makes one Iota of difference to the discussion. -- Fredrick day 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? Why then revert my replacement very brief comment referring to this here, with an uncivil summary? If it will have no effect, why take such risks to avoid its visibility?--Abd (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (note: Fredrick day did revert his own reversion mentioned above, see below. Prudent. --Abd (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference, during this period, User:Fredrick day was using IP edits to harass editors and inflame AN/I reports, anonymously. He was discovered and is indef blocked.--Abd (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary also taken out, without being placed in Talk. This is clear edit warring.

 * The nomination and some comments here are claimed by me to misrepresent the ArbComm decision, thus possibly prejudicing the situation. A header was placed here with information on that, it has been moved to Talk by editors on one side of this debate, please see Talk for this page, I assert that the information there is relevant to any review of this debate.--Abd (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The above text is NPOV. Opinion is attributed. User:Fredrick day day reverted it out with the summary:


 * (so let it proceed then, your attempts to slur good faith editors by associate should cease or you should be blocked for disruption.)

I see nothing in what I wrote, shown above, that slurs any editor, nor does it impugn the good faith of any. This edit summary is uncivil and amounts to a personal attack. Would someone please warn User:Fredrick day and take this to WP:AN/I if response is not satisfactory? I have to go pick up the kids and will be busy until late with them.--Abd (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You have the problem YOU take it to AN/I. -- Fredrick day 18:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have posted at ANI about this . Edit warring and bickering on an MfD is unacceptable and uneccesary. -- Naerii  19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Naerii. Absolutely, you are correct. Given, however, that Fredrick day did revert his own reversion, the one with the incivility in the edit summary, half the cause for the report disappeared, unless, of course, you intended to report my allegedly bad behavior.... The other half, the blatant incivility of this editor, was murkily confirmed by his self-reversion: (actually - no - let people see you for what you are.) However, given that I'm quite pleased if people see me as I am, warts and all, I'm not going to take offense at it. I will comment on AN/I for the record, but I don't think I'd have taken a report there. It may have been quite enough that I asked for assistance here. Which is, by the way, a recommended early step in dispute resolution. Worked spectacularly, here. And, fingers crossed, there may be some consensus arising, at least we can hope; those interested see my Talk page discussions with Elonka, who kindly commented there. Might as well not be mysterious, though.

A possible consensus solution would be to blank the pages. This removes them from searches, thus addressing the claims that PHG is abusing Wikipedia as a web host. But it leaves them available in history for possible legitimate use at a future time by him or others. He could simply create a link to a permanent version. If he blanks the page, it might be automatically deleted, so I think someone else would blank it for him. I'd do it, if he consents. There is some feeling that PHG would not consent to any collegial solution. I'd say we should find out. Blanking answers the legitimate concerns of some of those voting Delete, and also his legitimate desire to keep the material readily available for use. (Many here are assuming that he can simply copy the files to his hard drive. What if he is editing from a library using a public computer?)

Many voters have unfortunately assumed that this editor was found guilty of egregious abuse of sources, such that his work would be utterly unusable. That is not found in the ArbComm decision, which was actually quite mild. I recommend reading it, it was apparently carefully crafted, and it specifically asserts that good faith continues to be assume with respect to this editor, and misrepresentation of source was not claimed to be deliberate, nor was it claimed to be widespread, a "few sources" were mentioned. (The decision is linked from Elonka's first comment in the case.) Again, contrary to what many seem to have assumed, his participation in the articles was not prohibited. It was restricted, such that he is not to directly edit the articles, but he can make any civil suggestions he chooses in Talk. This is quite unlike other topic bans I've seen, where complete avoidance of the topic is required. Essentially, it is as if ArbComm decided that he is to be treated as a COI editor for a year. That's actually quite astute, given the level of original research he seems to have done. That work can then inform the actual editors of the article, who are responsible for personally verifying it before inserting any of it into the article. Thus, even if it is true that the subject articles are rife with misrepresentation of sources, it should do no harm. Given the history, he would simply be wasting his time.--Abd (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)