Talk:Hong Tran/Archive 1

Archive 1

redirection

I have moved relevant information to the Senate election article. Before deciding to try to reestablish this article, please see Wikipedia:deletion policy. John Broughton 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the deletion policy, especially the part, "If in doubt, don't delete." I find it interesting that you deleted this article in the midst of a great deal of attention on the Hong Tran campaign, on the very day when she was the subject of several articles in the press, gave an hour-long NPR interview, and became Cantwell's main challenge to the Democratic nomination. I would think it would be a time to expand, rather than delete. Emcee 06:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I did NOT delete the article. I moved the content to the campaign article, and put a redirect so that people would be redirected to the campaign article where the content could be found. And as far as the timing - I don't follow the race closely, and was (and, for that matter, still am, except for your comment) unaware of how what media coverage Hong Tran has or has not gotten, or is getting. What I did was based on wikipedia policy.

I'm not going to propose this article for deletion, now that it has substantial content, but I can't speak for others. John Broughton 12:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving all the content and making it a redirect is about as close as you can get to a deletion without being an admin or going through the deletion process (which this action seemed to circumvent). Adding info to the election article was fine, but removing all content from the Hong Tran page I don't think was the right action under WP policy, especially if you're not particularly familiar with the race. Looking in the history, deletion labels had been added a couple of times, but were removed, to be reevaluated after the primary. I agree that the content previously had not been especially substantial or well formatted, but it was more from a lack of writers than lack of available info on the candidate. Emcee 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Change to redirect or submit for WP:AFD

Please see this talk page for discussion about turning this article and the articles for the other losing primary challengers from the WA senate race into redirects or submitting for WP:AFD. And, of course, make your opinion known on the topic on that page as well. --Bobblehead 17:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham NPOV edits

Emcee said

Adding "Tran supporters claim" to almost every sentence and removing valid, sourced information, not only chops up the readibility and flow, but also gives the reader less information and an inaccurate history. It adds neither clarity nor readability to the article. Emcee 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham said

You display a strong bias in favor of Tran. One of the many examples of your bias in favor of Tran is where you leave in:

"Tran differs most visibly from Cantwell on the following issues:" and then the citation is Tran's own campaign web site. Simply citing any source, let alone Tran's own campaign web site, does not establish a fact, nor is it NPOV. It is incorrect to claim something about one candidate in a political race is a fact simply because a different candidate claimed so on his or her web site. It is accurate to say that "Tran supporters claim" or "Tran claims" in regard to these various statements in the article as it now stands. One would not reasonably cite the 2000 Bush campaign about Bush's differences from Gore, and one would not reasonably cite the 2000 Gore campaign about Gore's differences from Bush. It is no different here. Tran's campaign web site is obviously a biased source as regards Cantwell, just like Cantwell's web site is obviously a biased source as regards Tran or any other Cantwell opponents. Note that I left in all or almost all of the issues when I made edits. However, to make it NPOV, I merely made sure that it was clear that none of these alleged "facts" were facts, they are simply claims of Tran's supporters (or Tran herself). --Nottingham 18:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Emcee said

A campaign website is a valid self-published source under WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. If you would like to supplement or revise with alternative sources, that would be a good way to advance NPOV, but adding "Tran supporters claim" as if every sentence of this article is biased is inaccurate, less readable, and unhelpful. Moreover:

• I did not write this entire article. Your first paragraph edits were done to something written by Bobblehead, who is not in any way a Tran supporter.
• your revision of the Wilson events IS biased; these were not interpretations by Tran supporters, but by the media in general. There are multiple citations of this from the P-I, Washington Times, and other neutral sources both here and on the Senate elections page.
• what is the purpose of deleting "full-hour" before interview? How does that add the cause of NPOV?
• Compare:

A.) Tran has said that Cantwell is not the most electable Democratic candidate for exactly this reason -- because she has divided the party and alienated the progressive faction to the extent that many will either stay home or vote for a third party candidate during the general election.

B.) Tran claims that Cantwell is not the most electable Democratic candidate because Tran claims that Cantwell has divided the party and alienated the progressive faction to the extent that many will either stay home or vote for a third party candidate during the general election.

which one is more natural and readable? They say the same thing -- it is clear in A.) that we are talking about something attributed to Tran; B.) is tortured: "Tran claims that" "because Tran claims that"??? Emcee 18:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham said

Notably, you did not deny or contest my remark that "You display a strong bias in favor of Tran."

You inaccurately claim that "A campaign website is a valid self-published source under WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources." In fact, there is no reference to campaign web sites there. However, the closest reference is to "Partisan, religious and extremist websites". As the guidelines say, "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source." I did not delete the comments from Tran's web site. I simply edited them to say "Tran's supporters claim" or similar qualifiers.

As for opinion pieces or essayist columns in newspapers, they are not facts. They are opinions.

--Nottingham 19:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable to argue that the Hong Tran entry should be deleted from Wikipedia (the article could be merged into the article on the 2006 Washington US Senate election). The Tran entry is an extraordinarily detailed entry for a very minor candidate in a primary election. Tran seems like an honorable, admirable, good-hearted, hard-working, talented, and accomplished person. However, it is obvious that she does not represent a significant political movement, and it is equally obvious that the article here has been promoted by Tran supporters trying to use it for a partisan agenda. Tran is not a significant public figure, not even in the state of Washington. There are plenty of primary candidates who have challenged incumbents in Senate elections and who have received more than 5% of the vote. Tran did not even get 5% of the vote. Even among the most partisan of Democrats (the most partisan of Democrats and Republicans are those who vote in their respective party's primaries), Tran drew less than 5% of the vote. Cantwell may win or lose her re-election bid, but it seems clear that there is no other viable Democratic candidate for her Senate seat in 2006. The Tran entry keeps getting edits that indicate an agenda to argue that there should be a different Democratic candidate than Cantwell. There is nothing wrong with holding such an opinion (or disagreeing with such an opinion), but such advocacy has no place in a Wikipedia entry. --Nottingham 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Emcee said

"treated with caution" does not mean it is an invalid source; in fact, it implies just the opposite, that it can be used as a source, with the proper care. I didn't say there was an explicit reference to "campaign websites" in the policy, just that it is covered under the policy, as a self-published source for material about itself. I agree that we should not use Tran's website as a source of information about Cantwell or Cantwell's positions, and have accepted those changes.

As far as opinions, or analyses of actual events, such as the Wilson buy-out: if an opinion is widely held in the media and by acknowledged experts (like various political commentators), and especially if it is (as in this case) essentially uncontroverted, AND it is cited (which it is), then it is NOT appropriate to write "Tran supporters claim." Read up on the Wilson events in the citations and links here and on the Senate elections page, then tell me that only Tran's supporters think this is why things happened the way they did.

Since you seem to need me to say this, "I hereby declare that I deny that I display a strong bias in favor of Tran." Whether or not I agree with her is a separate issue, and if I do, that doesn't mean that I can't contribute to this article and do my best to make it NPOV. Which is what I'm doing here. I would say that your edits display a strong bias against Tran, with editorializing in your latest revision such as "Tran has not identified any Democratic candidates who are more electable than Cantwell, who won the Democratic primary with an overwhelming majority of 91% of the vote." (you in fact redundantly restated the primary election results more than once in this section, even though they are given elsewhere in this article and the one on the Senate election that is linked). Tran was saying that SHE was more electable than Cantwell as a candidate in the general election, given Cantwell's voting record on the war especially, that could allow McGavick to direct the campaign to other issues where he would look better in comparison. Even if Cantwell won the primary by a large margin, the possible reasons for that are many, and do not necessarily mean that she is therefore the most electable candidate in the general. Emcee 20:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham said

You are simply a Hong Tran zealot. You have an obsession with this Wiki page. You have been editing it constantly for a couple of months. You are hopelessly biased.

Any left wing candidate who gets less than 5% in a Democratic primary is hopelessly unelectable, just like any right wing candidate who gets less than 5% in a Republican primary is hopelessly unelectable. Your bias, agenda, and young age shows with this ridiculous comment that you made:

"Tran was saying that SHE was more electable than Cantwell as a candidate in the general election"

Did Tran ever say this? I haven't seen it. Please provide the quote from her. You do that throughout your Wiki edits. You assume that opinion writers and essayists in newspapers are providers of facts, and that a candidate's web site is a provider of facts about an opponent.

You are hopelessly biased for Tran. She is a political nobody. I respect her apparent talents, accomplishments, strong personal character, energy and enthusiasm for public service, and concern for the welfare of others. However, she is no more significant than any other primary candidate who gets less than 5% of the vote against an incumbent.

It may be that Cantwell will lose the general election. It may be that Cantwell will win. It is very clear that there is no Democrat who wanted to run in Washington state in 2006 who could do better. Of course there might be more viable candidates in the Democratic party, but they did not run in Washington in 2006.

Insert non-formatted text here

===Keep it civil=== (Bobblehead said)

Keep it civil y'all.;) No sense in getting worked up over an article on Wikipedia. Side note. One way to figure out if the article should remain is to submit it for deletion or merger. --Bobblehead 21:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Emcee said

I'm assuming that was Nottingham with the ad hominem attacks. Yes, I have been contributing to and watching this page for a couple of months. That's what Wikipedia is about. You showed up on the day of the primary election and started making major changes without explanation.

Yes, Tran said it all over the place. The NPR interview for one, go listen to it; it would be a good starting point for someone wanting to make major changes to the article, to inform themselves about the subject.

Everything else you wrote is not worth responding to, although it evidences your strong bias against Tran. Emcee 21:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham said

Why the false attacks? You claim I made changes without explanations. That is false. Every change had an explanation.

Whatever Tran said, I have seen no citation for it. You claim it is in the NPR interview. Fine. Get a transcript that can be cited.

As for whether or not Tran is more electable than Cantwell, assuming your are telling the truth, then it appears that Tran believes she is more electable. However, the overwhelming evidence indicates otherwise. Just because some random 60 year old out of shape man who has never played basketball competitively thinks he can beat Michael Jordan in a game of basketball doesn't mean that is possible. When a person on the extreme side of their own party loses in the primary by an overwhelming margin, it is obvious that person was not electable. In Rhode Island, Laffey received 46% of the vote in losing the Republican primary. Laffey is far to the Right of Chafee. Laffey wsa a strong contender in the Republican primary. In Rhode Island, one might argue that Laffey might have been a stronger Republican candidate than Chafee in the general election (I don't think so; I think Laffey would have lost in the general election by a wide margin), but the Republican party leadership disagreed and supported Chafee. Regardless, at least Laffey won 46% of the vote in a losing primary. Claiming that a candidate (Tran) who couldn't even win 5% of the primary vote is a viable candidate is ludicrous.

As for showing up the day of the primary, it was because I saw the link elsewhere on Wikipedia. Big deal. I don't live or vote in Washington. I never heard of Tran before coming to his page. I found her to be an interesting, admirable person of great character and accomplishments. As I have been following the Congressional elections nationwide, and had not heard of Tran (and Democratic friends in Washington that I asked about Tran were barely aware of her), and considering that Tran got less than 5% of the vote in the primary, it is ludicrous to claim that she is a big name or viable candidate in Washington in 2006. Perhaps in the future she will become an elected official, but in 2006 she is obviously not a viable candidate.

--Nottingham 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobblehead said

Emcee, the comment was aimed at both of you. You've slung a fair number of baseless accusations yourself, so there isn't any innocents here. Now, into some real comments here. Prior to this week this article was little more than a campaign site for Tran and while that appearance has decreased, it still leans that direction. Most notably, the whole issue section. There's an inordinate amount of space on Tran's stance on issues that had no bearing on the race and even the ones that had bearing waste too many characters kicking at Cantwell. All in all, there's bound to be some way a small content dispute on a very minor article in Wikipedia can be resolved in a civil manner.--Bobblehead 21:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham said

I think I said elsewhere that this entry should probably be merged into the Election entry. Why someone who got less than 5% of the primary vote in a mid-sized state election should have an entry is beyond me. I have said many times that I admire and respect Tran. However, were it not for someone trying to post a campaign promotion for her on Wikipedia, this entry wouldn't exist. She is not newsworthy, and her campaign did not generate waves or profound impacts on Washington. If she does something noteworthy, then it would make sense for her to have a page on Wikipedia. Until then, her page should be merged into the election page. Tran has no new, special or distinguished political views, political accomplishments, or political following. There aren't any Wikipedia pages for Mike The Mover, Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson, or Mohammad H. Said, the other three candidates in the Primary. There shouldn't be a page on Brad Klippert either (a loser in the Republican primary), Brad Klippert's Wikipedia page should be merged into the election page as well. However, at least Klippert's page is only two sentences plus one brief paragraph written in NPOV. Klippert got almost the exact same number of votes as Tran (22,709 compared to 22,734), so it seems that Klippert is comparably popular among Washington voters. Actually, that should be comparably not popular among Washington voters, as neither Klippert nor Tran is newsworthy or appropriate for Wikipedia pages.

--Nottingham 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Emcee said

I'm sorry Nottingham -- you don't live in Washington, but you say "Legislative Districts are notoriously unrepresentative in Washington." How so?

The issue with retaining this article is whether it is sufficient to stand on its own, not what percent of the vote they got. As I mentioned on the election page, Nader never got 5% of the vote, but he was a notable candidate for President. Tran campaigned across the state, gor coverage in papers in Olympia, Yakima, Spokane, Seattle, etc. and even as far as Washington, D.C., with a feature in the Washington Times. The NW Asian weekly regarded her campaign as historic for being the first Vietnamese-American in the state to run for Senate.

Klippert may have gotten a higher percentage against a candidate who didn't have as much money as Cantwell, but if nobody is around to write an article for him, and he didn't get as much media coverage as Tran, then that's not a basis for deleting the Tran article. Emcee 22:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation requested from the WP:Mediation Cabal. The page shoul be up at: [1] before too long. Take a break and chill out until then. Peace. Emcee 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham said

Emcee keeps inserting agenda-based, biased comments.

Emcee does not seem to understand the difference between facts and the comments of opinion writers in newspapers.

The remarks of a minor ethnic weekly paper aren't important facts. Emcee is acting as if "I saw it on the Internet, so it MUST be important!" or "Someone wrote this line so it MUST be quoted as IMPORTANT!"

Hong Tran is a political nobody. She was doing next to nothing from 2004 until 2006. I respect her personal character and talents, but in the world of politics and government, she is a nobody. That is not to criticize her as a person. She seems talented and devoted to helping others.

There are 49 Legislative Districts in Washington state. Only ONE endorsed Tran as its preferred candidate. The other 48 did not endorse her as their preferred candidate. Legislative Districts are not even democratic in nature, one has to pay $20 to be a voting member. The majority of registered Democrats are not even eligible to participate in determinig Legislative District leaders (the leaders who endorsed Tran in ONE district). Moreover, as the voters in the LD's overwhelmingly supported Cantwell, it seems that those who keep promoting Tran's reception of ONE endorsement from an LD have an anti-democratic agenda that does not respect the will of the Democratic voters in Washington

Emcee even ignores the Post-Intelligencer article (which are the writer's OPINIONS, not facts) that the Legislative District endorsement of Tran was simply a show by the LD leaders that they were annoyed about the war in Iraq and that it was NOT about their belief in Tran.

--Nottingham 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Emcee said

Tran received 4 endorsements as a preferred candidate, only one solo (from Cantwell's home district, which is not insignificant information), but 4 endorsements nonetheless. As Bobblehead noted, the newspaper DID report these facts.

The remarks of even a small weekly paper (circ. ~ 10k) are much more likely to be NPOV than is your analysis right now. The statement was fully attributed as being from one reporter in one newspaper; even if it is only significant to the Vietnamese or Asian community in the Northwest, that is still a pretty sizable number of people.

You say, "The "media" supporting this statement are biased advocacy groups or very close to being biased advocacy group.)" One of the media supporting that statement is the Seattle stranger. That is not a biased advocacy group; it is a major weekly newspaper in a major American city.

Btw, Hong Tran now has more than 5% of the Democratic vote -- a large percentage of the state votes by mail, and they are still rolling in and being counted. Now she's over the threshhold you set, I expect that you will raise your threshhold for a notable candidate.

You also deleted even more plain factual biographical details, and her info box. Things like her DOB and spouse name are freely available from sources like the Sec of State filings, or her campaign page. The bio has already been trimmed considerably; it is reasonable to have a paragraph or two of biographical information. Try comparing to the Cantwell page for some perspective on these things. To me, these edits show some severe antipathy towards the subject or the page itself that is hurting the process here.

I can see you've already reverted it back before I've finished writing this. This is getting a little crazy. How about we set some ground rules to try to avoid these senseless edit wars (after reverting back to before all these edits today):

A.) Three edits (three edits on individual sections, not throughout the whole article) per 24 hours B.) Each edit discussed on the talk page C.) WP:AGF from here on out

Emcee 17:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham said

You are agenda driven. You are trying to use Tran's Wikipedia entry as a place to advance your own political agenda.

Every fact or comment about a person, place or thing is not necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. In a state that has already elected women and non-whites to statewide office. There is nothing noteworthy about a Vietnamese American woman getting slightly less than 5.1% of the primary vote in that state.

Your clear biases are demonstrated by your hastiness and inability to hold to any factual standards. For example, you have invented and ascribed to me a standard I have never mentioned: what you call a "5% . . . threshhold you set".

People's home addresses and social security numbers are in the public domain very often, yet it is Wikipedia policy generally not to include such information in an entry.

Comparing Tran's entry on Wikipedia to Cantwell's is irrelevant. Cantwell is an elected US Senator. An appropriate comparison for Tran's entry is Klippert's. Regardless, you are clearly agenda-driven and should take a deep breath and find other ways to advocate for Tran or the policies that you support besides trying to use Wikipedia for that personal agenda.

--Nottingham 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Emcee said

You did set a threshhold with 5%, by saying half a dozen times in edit summaries, the talk page, and the article that she was not worthy because she got "less than" 5%. Now that she got "more than" 5%, it is changed to be "less than 5.1%". Do you see the inherent bias in that wording? 5% is at least a common amount, either one unit in a Quinary system (familiar because we have five fingers on each hand), or significant in presidential elections as the threshhold that a third party has to get to to qualify as a minor party for federal funding in the next election... but "less than" 5.1%? The double standard is shown where you say "the voters in Legislative Districts across Washington overwhelmingly voted for Cantwell, who received approximately 90.9% of the vote, and not for Tran, who received slightly less than 5.1% of the vote." "Approximately 90.9%", not "less than 91%." "Less than" seems to be an attempt to make it seem small. She either got "approximately" 5.1% of the vote, or she got "more than 5%" of the vote. "Less than 5.1%" just doesn't make any sense.

The other arguments I just plain disagree with. Still waiting for the mediation on this, but I'm also going to open an RfC to try to get someone to provide some perspective here. In the meantime, I know you're a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, so I will ask you to please take a look at WP:MASTODONS and Wikipedia guidelines. Emcee 20:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You have no sense of facts or standards, and you do not understand the difference between facts and opinion. You have a repeated record of doing this. For example, you ignored that a candidate's own web site is a partisan source of information.

You have falsely ascribed to me some "threshhold" of "5%" in the context of, in your words, Tran being "not worthy". Amazingly, you repeated your false claims without being able to quote where I talked about a "threshhold" of "5%" or Tran not being "worthy". Grow up, learn to read and learn basic academic standards.

Tran received less than 5% of the vote in the initial counts listed on Wikipedia. It appears she is now at 5.1% in the official count. So? If she gets all the way to 6% in the final tally or falls to 4%, it will remain overwhelmingly clear to any reasonable observers that Tran has no meaningful support in the state of Washington in 2006 to replace Cantwell as Senator. This doesn't prove that Tran would be a good or bad Senator. It doesn't prove that Cantwell is a good or bad Senator.

--Nottingham 22:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Put the article up for WP:AFD and see what the rest of Wikipedia thinks of an article for Hong Tran. It's really quite ridiculous the amount of edit warring that is going on at this very minor article. --Bobblehead 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to delete the article. I don't see why there is a Wikipedia article about someone who got about 5% of the primary votes in an election against an incumbent who got over 90% of the vote. This has nothing to do with Hong Tran as a human being, and in no way should be viewed as a criticism of her personal qualities. She seems to be a talented and admirable person, who is concerned about improving society. However, she was not a popular candidate, she was not widely supported, and she does not seem to be an influential community leader. This article seems to exist solely for her supporters to try to promote her and their own personal agendas.--Nottingham 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD created. Follow the link provided on the main article to voice your opinion. --Bobblehead 01:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Emcee's history of the Hong Tran page edit war/AfD

I became the primary editor of this article on July 27, after Hong Tran became Cantwell's main challenger in the Democratic primary. On the day of the primary election, Sept. 19th (or actually late the night before, Pacific Time), Nottingham made his first edits, in multiple places in the article, with an edit summary citing NPOV and saying that the article looked like a campaign site. I reverted these edits that I thought were inaccurate and oddly timed.

I don't know why Emcee keeps repeating this remark about the edits being oddly timed. There were election links on the main page of Wikipedia that day (I believed the Washington election entry was on the front page). I have already said this, yet Emcee is failing to Assume Good Faith and leaves that out. By repeating multiple times that he/she believes the edits were oddly timed, even after he/she has been told there was an election link on Wikipedia's main page, it sadly seems that Emcee is ignoring Assume Good Faith and is leaving out the clear, direct and easy to understand explanation. --Nottingham 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The next day (Sept. 20th), on the talk page for the Washington State Senate Elections of 2006, Bobblehead proposed either redirecting or sending through AfD the pages of multiple challengers who had lost in the primary, including Hong Tran (note that the pages of the other challengers had hardly any content, and no significant media coverage). I was the only person who responded to this, and argued that the Hong Tran article did not meet the grounds for AfD. (note: Bobblehead and I had been tangling a bit already over some related issues on the Washington Senate elections page.) I had suggested, in response to Bobblehead's criticisms that the Hong Tran article was not properly sourced, that he help improve the page rather than deleting it, by updating citations or fixing NPOV problems. He replied, "I'll head on over later and begin the improving process and we'll see what is left."

Bobblehead started making "improvements" to the page, and was almost instantly joined by Nottingham. Their alternating series of "improvements" included gradual deletions to the content of the page. There were places where new or additional citations were asked for, and I provided them, but the deletions continued. Meanwhile, on the talk page, the discussion (mostly between Nottingham and myself) was not converging towards consensus or cooperation. All of this grew into an edit war. None of the three parties (myself, Bobblehead, or Nottingham) are innocent in participating and fueling this edit war. In response to what I percieved as continuing or increasing deletions/reversions and personal attacks from Nottingham, I opened a Mediation Cabal Case on Sept. 22nd. We did not immediately receive a mediator, so the war continued for a bit. I tried to set some ground rules for us working together and stopping the edit war, such as WP:AGF and limiting ourselves to three edits per day, but Nottingham's response was to accuse me of having a personal agenda and that I was using Wikipedia to advance this agenda. I continued to seek mediation, requesting people to come comment on Wikiquette, and trying to find a mediator for the MedCabal case. Nottingham continued his personal attacks on me, to which Bobblehead responded by sending the article to AfD (with Nottingham's full support), while the article was still in this highly unstable, highly redacted, and highly contested state.

Why the editorializing, biased, non-NPOV characterization of "Nottingham's full support"? I never pushed for AfD. Bobblehead suggested it on this very page. I wrote "It would be reasonable to delete the article". The characterization of "full support" is not NPOV and indicates a bias. Emcee has made me the subject of many of his/her comments on the AfD page, which is highly inappropriate and has diverted the AfD from being an AfD into being Emcee's non-NPOV discussion of me. --Nottingham 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

While the article was in AfD, Nottingham violated WP:3RR by continuing to revert the article. He accused User:Sdedeo of being my sockpuppet, and also made personal attacks against User:Rebecca for her reversion of his 4th reversion. User:Snottygobble attempted to advise Nottingham on WP:CIVIL, but was met with additional attacks, leading to Nottingham being blocked for 24h.

Does this have anything to do with the AfD? It appears to be non-NPOV comments about me. I have suggested, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for trying to resolve and diffuse problem situations, that you start a Wikipedia entry such as "Reasons to Dislike Nottingham". You can put it on my User Page if you like. --Nottingham 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The forced wikibreak seems to have changed his behavior from overt attacks to sarcasm, based on his continuing comments to User:Snottygobble and others.

More non-NPOV personal attacks on me, in what is ostensibly a discussion of an AfD. --Nottingham 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He is continuing to accuse me of false statements, advancing an agenda, etc. on the talk page for the Washington Senate elections here.

You should quote verbatim, instead of using non-NPOV characertizations of what I said. You are failing to Assume Good Faith, and you are engaging in Personal Attacks. But, what does any of this have to do with the AfD that Bobblehead started? --Nottingham 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the situation with Nottingham still requires some additional intervention from an experienced user. He has blanked his own talk page 4 times to remove warnings and corrective advice from various users and admins, which appears to be against WP policy[2]: ". . .users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion [from their own talk page], except in cases of legitimate warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors." Emcee 08:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are in violation of Wikipedia policies, and you have libeled me by misstating Wikipedia policy and not accurately reporting it. Your quote does not correspond to the page that you linked to. In fact, you blatantly ignore that on the very page you quoted, it says "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion." Moreover, you have made me the subject of the AfD, you have contact several Wikipedia users about me, you have apparently been tracking me across Wikipedia. Nothing is hidden on Wikipedia. Everything ever written can easily be found. Yet, you continue attacking me instead of addressing the AfD. There is unfortunately no other way to characterize what you are doing except that you are engaging in virtual stalking of me on Wikipedia. --Nottingham 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Commentary on the crud and the AfD

I have given this my own cursory review. Here are my conclusions. Take them as you will.

• Nottingham: to say that this is bad faith is probably unnecessary, as you certainly seem to mean well, but you are still, in my opinion, engaging in an edit war of a pedantic variety. My suggestion is to leave it alone instead of reverting and whatnot, and if you really, really think that there are bias issues, then there are tags for that - put one up and walk away, and just let somebody else deal with it. It's not worth growing an ulcer over. I also note that your account is new, which I will point out makes your intentions questionable at best. Then again, in the immortal words of Dennis Miller, "that's my opinion, I could be wrong."

• Emcee: Of the assessments as above, I, for one, think yours is the most concise as far as what happened here - modulo commentary inserted by Nottingham.

Overall, I'm not terribly happy of the use of me as an example of where things stand, but it happened, so I guess I'll have to live with it.

As far as the issues, I am inclined to request a lock on the article with a new AfD. Should this happen, I will vote to keep. Unless this happens, I have nothing more to say.

--Dennisthe2 16:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)