Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Adult-child sex

message: is engaged in a blatant canvassing campaign, check his contribs, an overthrown DRV on the basis of a canvasser has no legitimacy, perhaps some admin would care to take action. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else posted this at  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvass violation here by User:TlatosMD - review? and someone else reverted them. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To further clarify, the canvassing was reverted, not the notice. The user (TlatoSMD) was indeed warned for violations of WP:CANVASS. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  03:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To which another admin commented that both reverting and the warning were "a little unusual" and "actually not recommended per the policy page". --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article is restored further action will be needed re this canvassing while any further decisions re the page would have to take into account this canvassing, which has only come from one side iont hat debate and arguably would make claims of validity of the article by that side not relevant. generally canvassing of the type Tlato did is shooting oneself in the foot. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canvas warrior on adult-child sex

message: Somebody moved one of my posts around on the main page thereby disconnecting it from the post it was responding to. According to , it was obviously The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an edit conflict, sometimes stuff gets shifted around accidentally. Don't go looking for problems where there are none; the guy's voting the same way you are, so he's not trying to undermine you. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Apology accepted. Let me tell you Fat Man, you're one of the most civil people wherever I've seen you, even with with these topics, thank you for that. --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks.  I do my best to be nice.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messing with my posts 

message: ** This will be my one and only contribution to this discussion. To reply to the discussion, here's fine. Anything for me specifically, go to my talk page: HERE for Kudos, HERE for Crybabiness, and HERE for personal attacks and flames (attn: SqueakBox). Otherwise, HERE would work too and I'll sort it later.
:: I originally "voted" to delete. Rather, I voted to keep and later changed my vote. That chain of events led to a block for "aggressive behavior". That aggressive behavior was perhaps over-the-top, but it largely (almost exclusively) consisted of pointing out personal attacks, harrassment, and what could be construed as threats against myself and others involved in the debate. After all these things happened I was moved to change my vote to delete (much as in the Good Old Days people would confess to anything under torture).
:: The only reason I changed my vote was because I was trying to extricate myself from these discussions and articles entirely. I had hoped that perhaps changing to be on the side of the three most prolific editors (or deleters, as the case may be), I may be left in peace. Not so.
:: Ultimately, though, the deletion was based, as far as I can tell, on the vehemence of the article's three main detractors. Here is why the article should stay, based on policy:
::* WP:Notability - This article, at it's height, had 15 references for the phrase itself, including USA Today and The Washington Post and at least a couple scientific journals. The entire point of the page was to show the historical and a neutral viewpoint of the "phenomenon" of ACS. That this has been in a very wide array in this exact term shows notability. The case for Child Sexual Abuse had once been stated as "it is a commonly-used term" (from one of the ACS page's primary detractors). The same, though, can be said of this article.
::* WP:Reliable sources - As illustrated above, the article included references of the term's use and even definition/usage from USA Today and The Washington Post. I don't think anyone here would really try to argue that these, and scientific journals, are not reliable sources.
::* WP:Neutral point of view - The article always had issues, but those issues swung like a pendulum. Most of the time, the NPOV was in accusations, talk page stuff, and removel or adding of content. The biggest contention was that the whole article was NPOV because it was titled ACS. In fact, one of the Big Three editors once stated that the article is inherently NPOV because it was titled that way and that it was "on the wrong side of the issue". That statement illustrated exactly why the article was necessary and the blatant POV of the editors. At its best, the article had a section on Abusive ACS, non-abusive ACS (think old teen and young adult), and ACS within marriage. It also had a modern-day section and a historical section. It even had anthropological sections. It linked to CSA, Age of consent, Child marriage, and many other pages to provide an exceptionally balanced viewpoint. In fact, it was one of the most-referenced (if not best-referenced, granted) articles and extremely neutral in its language (far more than most any other PAW article).
::* WP:Other stuff exists - That CSA exists really is more POV than for ACS to exist. CSA is a part (the most major part in modern times, yes) of ACS. There are articles on Child sexual abuse, Child marriage, Age of consent (multiple pages!), and many others that deal with only a fraction of ACS issues. The ACS article was larger in scope, more inclusive in content, and more referenced overall than all of these.
::* WP:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument - For the most part, the discussions consisted of "per WP:xxxx" but gave little actual content for justification, as I have above.
::* WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! - This was the most used method, by both sides, on these discussions.
::* WP:Steamroll minority opinions - Lastly, this is the one "policy" that was used most by the deletion camp (primarily the Big Three). The edit histories of the article, though through good faith we may try to believe it was not an intentional, coordinated process, show a long series of incremental deletions. It would be like a near-blanking of a page, but instead of through a single edit, through tens of edits. This contributed to a lot of the aggression and antagonization of editors trying hard to improve the article instead of simply deleting the article one piece at a time.  
:VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: VigilancePrime details

message: I've undone User:Krimpet's early closure. DRV debates are normally closed after 5 days; while some can certainly be closed sooner due to snow consensus, this is not the case, as the verdict was "a complete lack of consensus" for either solution. And, as User:Krimpet voiced "delete" in the AfD in question, I don't think User:Krimpet is in the best position to close this DRV as an endorsement of the deletion result. Also, I'd like to recommend that administrators who have voted keep/delete in the related AfD steer clear of closing this DRV discussion and let an uninvolved administrator close it. Thanks and best regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--a disinterested party should close this discussion.  Krimpet (who recently opined "just nuke it with extreme prejudice") seems to have strong feelings about whether or not this article should remain deleted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I doubt it will effect the outcome, it should be closed by an uninvolved person to avoid the appearance of bias. I also see no reason no to wait it out the full 5 days. (1 == 2)Until 15:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree, the appearance of bias is very relevant. If the community thinks a decision was made with bias then it damages the communities respect for the decision. As for our trust in admins, it is common practice that the closer not be involved in the debate. (1 == 2)Until 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article is restored based on the poor actions of one admin the article will have no real consensus to exist and this will create huge problems about how to go forward in that article space. Therefore I agree that we should wait 5 days and have an admin with experience who has remained completel;y uninvolved till now (eg not PeaceNT). Thanks, SqueakBox 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Right, the closer should not be involved in the debate. This is common practice and is a concession to those who believe the principle of the appearance of bias applies to Wikipedia, when it really should not. However, there is no custom that a closing admin should not have been involved in a peripheral debate about a different issue. Avruchtalk 16:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well someone who hasn't edited the article, the afd or the drv for adult-child sex and is considered unbiased by both sides. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early closure