|
I must protest your closure of this given you were already involved having unilaterally closed an RFC regarding the same subject matter twice, Please over turn your closure and allow an uninvolved administrator handle it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- If I was involved, I wouldn't of touched it. "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. [...] advice about community norms, [...] do not make an administrator 'involved'. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have requested a review of the deletion, I am of the opinion that you most certainly are involved given your comments above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- A link would have been nice. But you are certainly within your "rights" to do so. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot the link. Regarding your comment at DRV, why would I bring up something which you must have already read? The comments I have made at DRV are no different to what was written by other editors at the AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Mh ... 8 editors said "keep", 6 said "delete" of which some said "and redirect". What made you conclude there was a consensus for delete? JCAla (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- @DS: Because maybe I misread a statement or something, and you brought up a whole new argument of
me my close trying to censor Wikipedia. I will never deprive someone of their point of view on what I did, so long as it doesn't involve attacking other editors etc.
- @JCAla: There was some socking/votestacking of some sort going on (see the CU thread below), and it is not a vote count, it's argument strength. And I thought I covered the reasons why in my close, but let's try again. I did totally consider keeping the article, but to start with, the article title was not appropriate. So with that cleared up, it was either keep or delete now. Looking over the content, I saw several non-neutral statements and quite a load of source synthesis going on. The POVFORK issues that others brought up had some merit to it. The first two sections of the article were purely facts that were duplicating another topic, or a POVFORK. The last paragraph about Balochistan conflict was the only one that had something usable in it. Not to mention the six cleanup tags on the article. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Most editors obviously found the "keep" arguments stronger than the "delete" ones. And there was an IP statement on both parts of the debate, so this was not limited to one argument. The six clean-up tags were added intentionally by those who wanted the article deleted. As far as I can see everything was reliably sourced. So, I think, it was either keep or merge into the article about Pakistan's support for terrorism. JCAla (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- There was no synthesis at all in that article, I strongly object to that accusation. The sources used for statements of fact were from the academic press and the entire section Support for terrorists was sourced to the academic press. The only sources which were not academic were used only to source violations on human rights. The article should be kept, and do not say the information is in the ISI article, it is not as it was removed. The ISI article is to bloody big and messy anyway, it is about time spin off were made. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- @JCAla: I'm just going to come out and say this because I don't like dancing around subjects, you are counting the !votes, and that's a notion that I'm not going to deal with. Yes my close may have been controversial, but that is because i'm not counting the !votes, but looking at the bigger picture. About the tags, ok, they were there, but they weren't removed either, which means that there is a problem with the article relating to most of the tags. And statements of everything being "reliably sourced", which I partly disagree with, will not overturn this AfD. Better reasons are needed.
- @DS: Ok, looking it over, WP:SYN was my mal-wording of the bigger problem, which Eluchil404 stated as "Accusations that the ISI supports terrorist groups or facilitates terrorism are easy enough to find in reliable sources, but it doesn't follow that a content fork dedicated to such accusations is necessary or desirable." But please understand that i'm not trying to attack you personally through what you wrote with this, and my appologies if it feels that way. I don't have a problem with a spin off, but I have an issue with the way this one was created as a POVFORK, and how the statements were made to look.
- @All: I get the strange notion here from reading what I have that I might be coming off as supporting terrorism, that's not my objective, nor my opinion. My objective is to have a neutral encyclopedia. (which I know is a suicide mission in itself) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Would you support a move to a more neutral title? Inter-Services Intelligence alleged support for militants or similar? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- DQ, no, I am simply coming to a different conclusion with regards to what was the consensus at that AfD. I have a different judgement on what the majority of the editors said (yes) but also (!) about the weight of the arguments. And as can be seen, even part of those who were for deletion, at least favored a redirect or merge. I think, you did not take that into account. As for the supposed neutrality. Wikipedia as such is not neutral, let's not fool ourselves here. Wikipedia is a reflection of the majority opinion among sources considered "reliable". It does not give equal weight to minority positions (which in some cases may be very well right, and the majority might be wrong), it also does not reflect what i. e. dictatorship-run media see as the "truth" (which is a good thing), etc. Now, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), according to the majority position among "reliable sources", is supporting organizations which have been classified internationally as terrorist organizations. Almost every single Afghan civilian and ANA soldier as well as American, Canadian, European, Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban (and Taliban are responsible for 80 % of the civilian death and 90-100% of the military death) has been killed because of the recruitment, brain-washing, training, supplying, sending of brain-washed killers by the ISI. There is plenty of academic and other expert material on the fact, that militant organizations act as a strategic instrument for the military dictatorship in Pakistan. That is certainly worthy of an article or at least needs to be merged into the broader article about Pakistan's support to terrorism. As for the tags, oh, they were removed, but edit-warred back into the article. I didn't really feel the need to engage in an edit war for tags. I am sure, if more people had been aware of that article, that over-tagging would soon have come to an end. JCAla (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Aah, I smell the usual dose of fringe theories and POV propaganda back in action. Just thought I'd pop in my timely advice, beware DQ! Don't let soapboxing-style propaganda flay your noble mission of upholding the neutrality of this encyclopedia. I fully support your actions. For now, I'll leave the matter between you and Darkness Shines/JCAla & Co and am sure you will work out a neutral solution to this. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is typical WP:POINT. First RFCs closed repeatedly, AFD resulted in deletion, all these mean, there actually is something wrong with the content and there's consensus to exclude it. You some how seem to be insisting on it till you've had your way. I think it will be better not to repeatedly convince DQ of the reasons for the content, rather let his judgement of the article included consensus stay because you're asking him to add a supper vote into the decision. Seeing the DRV, this discussion is moot anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- On a side note, DeltaQuad, what do you have to say about this article that seems to have been created as a way to get around the closed AfD decision? A bit worrisome. Mar4d (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather say, beware of the "green" invasion. ;o) Everything I wrote above can be fact-checked very, very easily. The article "ISI in Afghanistan" is only worrisome to ISI supporters and those who fall for their narrative. JCAla (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Mar4d, stop following my edits. As to the article it most certainly is not a way around the AFD, it is an entirely different article. Given there are any number of CIA activities in (Country here) then this is no different to one of those. I am still working on the ISI terrorism article as can be seen in my user space here. And once I have polished it up I will again move it to main space using a more neutral title as many at the AFD and the DRV suggested. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
|
