Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 3 December 2009

• Comment. I'm confused. If an editor is topic banned, and this article is within the topic that the ban relates to, how in the world did anyone (them included ... and especially) think it was appropriate for them to comment here? That's especially disturbing, as their votes/comments appeared here as editors were forming their views. This sounds like a flagrant violation to me. Frankly, I don't care that they voted the same way I voted (and my vote will remain a keep). That sort of behavior poisons an AfD, as we can't determine which votes have been affected, and how much, without the editors indicating (as I have) that they would have voted keep in any event. All the to-ing and fro-ing about "but they made a valid point" and "it looks ridiculous to take out their comment" misses the point. They should not have made the comment in the first place--that is the purpose of the topic ban. Their "right" to edit on the banned topic is no greater than that of a sock or wikipedia-banned editor. Again, I'm very disappointed.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends on whether or not the topic ban applies to a journalist who writes about the conflict. And removing one half of a conversation is not the way to go, it just leaves people confused. I removed a banned sock who is site-banned from editing here, that is perfectly in line with policy, banned editors comments may be removed, but I would not have done so if there was a thread of conversation started by that user. And being site-banned is not comparable to being topic-banned, and if Gila wishes to pursue this she may take it to WP:AE. nableezy - 08:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"poisons an AfD, as we can't determine which votes have been affected"...or an antidote, depends on whether you view the nomination as toxic or non-toxic. Anyway, I don't think anyone said anthing misleading did they and people are meant to be able to make their own minds up Sean.hoyland - talk 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nab--Are you saying that with a straight face? How could it not? If it were just about the article on the topic, it would be an article ban. As described in this article, this fellow's notability stems only from his writing on the topic. Strip that away, and you don't even have a stub left to delete. A ban is a ban -- as to this topic, a topic-banned editor has precisely the same rights that wikipedia-banned editor has. Nil. Please, tell me that your first "it depends" comment wasn't serious.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was. nableezy - 15:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sean--And you're seriously saying that its wonderful that these topic banned editors commented, because they provided an "antidote" by making comments and casting votes--both of which can affect other voters--that they were prohibited from making? The whole purpose of people discussing matters here and voting publicly rather than in secret (as at the arb com vote) is so that people can and will influence others, and the weight of a building consensus can have its effect on voters. I'm rather surprised by your and Nab defending these stark ban violations, and making the comments you've just made. This is way too reminiscent of the Clinton impeachment vote where nearly all Democrats voted for him, and nearly all Republicans voted against him, even though what party he belonged to should not have mattered one bit. Partisanship on this page is way out of hand.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I said 'wonderful'. I said that whether someone sees it as poison or an antidote depends on their perspective of the nomination's toxicity. I don't really care whether they post comments or whether anyone removes them. I'm not obliged to care either way. They can take the consequences, they aren't children. Nor am I concerned about other editor's being influenced. They aren't children either. The root cause is a bad faith nomination and I take the view that 'assume good faith is not a suicide pact'. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sean.hoyland--
  "The root cause is a bad faith nomination and I take the view that 'assume good faith is not a suicide pact'."
  Thank you for articulating what I strongly feel.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

comments by topic banned users

• Comment. I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here, given the topics the man tends to write about, but from a journalism perspective - which is of course the correct way to look at this, rather than letting the fact that he's an "anti-Israel" writer prejudge the issue - being a "radical" freelance writer is not a bar to notability per se (see John Pilger). Not everyone has to be Bob Woodward to merit a page here - indeed plenty of generalist and little-known BBC TV reporters for example, who have never published books or had their writings included in serious mainstream publications, have their own pages on Misplaced Pages. At the end of the day, if someone comes across his name or his work and wants more info on him, it seems a bit odd to argue that they can't come here to find it. Maybe solicit some views from the WP:JOURNALISM project? --Nickhh (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that was necessarily the motivation for all or even any of those voting delete, I just said it shouldn't cloud the issue (and, to be honest, I suspect it is in part for some). I'm also conscious of WP:OTHERSTUFF - I should have expanded on my comment to make clear that I personally don't see a problem with having articles of that sort on fairly minor journalists. As noted, I don't see why WP shouldn't have brief, informative biogs on people who have a public profile, as long as they're not simply PR toss (or, alternatively, hatchet jobs). --Nickhh (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)