Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann

A quick summary to start

The list of reliable and independent sources covering Kaufmann can be found at Talk:Frank Kaufmann#Reliable independent coverage of Frank Kaufmann
Documentation of misrepresentation of sources can be found throughout that talkpage, but especially at:
As to Jclemens' accusations:
- Discussion of the material I removed in a previous article under AfD can be found at:
- Discussion of his allegation of "In at least one instance in the past, Hrafn has deleted material requested by one of his tags." can be found at Talk:Andrew Wilson (academic)#Bad faith accusations by Jclemens point 5.
- As to his accusation that I "engaged in a pattern of tagging the article in question after submitting it to AfD." -- I would point out that these difs show me moving & changing existing tags on material already tagged as poorly sourced, in response to edits which superficially changed the material without correcting the sourcing problems.
- As to this comment which he terms "disparagement", I claim WP:SPADE, as it was an accurate (if blunt) characterisation of an article that relied wholly on misrepresentation of trivial mentions in often unreliable sources -- a point that it has in common with the article currently under discussion.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A brief history of Frank Kaufmann

The article when I first encountered it, was simply a WP:COPYVIO of his blog biography (though I did not realise this at the time -- otherwise I'd have simply speedied it), lacking any sources (as well as being an unencyclopaedic series of wP:EMBEDed lists). I tagged and later deleted this unsourced material.
An anonymous editor restored this material and added a large number of spurious references for it.
I responded by tagging these bad citations, with detailed explanation.
After some further back and forth, and after this AfD began, this anonymous editor started to try to bridge the enormous gap between what the article claimed, and what the sources (many of which are from within the Unification Movement and/or were written by Kaufman himself) actually said by introducing some (often quite extreme) WP:OR & WP:SYNTH editorialising to make them slightly closer. As a result of this, I have been updating the tags to reflect this -- which is the source of Jclemens' accusation of a "pattern of tagging the article in question after submitting it to AfD"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors encouraged to investigate for themselves

I simply do not have time to match the massive effort of Hrafn to kill this article. Editors encouraged to investigate for themselves and decide whether or not Hrafn's personal attacks against a newbie and charges that he is strongly biased are reason enough to distrust some of the interpretations and characterizations he provides, both in talk page comments and in edits to the article. -Exucmember (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exucmember encouraged to cease making personal attacks

I have already templated Exucmember for his repeated, baseless, and frequently off-topic personal attacks. I would suggest that editors take note of his flagrant disregard for WP:NPA. I would also suggest that they take note of the fact that I'm being attacked for AfDing an article that even many of its supporters regard as badly written, badly sourced & of marginal notability. Who therefore should you "distrust"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, please explain your accusation

I have not made a personal attack on Hrafn here or on the Talk:Frank Kaufmann page for which he erroneously tagged my talk page (without citing a diff and without identifying what he thinks is a personal attack and why). Although it is very clear that Hrafn made personal attacks against a newbie (for which I did not tag his page because I am involved in an ongoing content dispute with him on another page, so I thought it would be more appropriate for an uninvolved editor to do so). I have criticized his edits and characterized them as showing bias. For example, he does not think Unification Church topics are notable because of the church's small size, ignoring the truly massive media coverage, especially in the late 70s and early 80s (and a few scattered but genuine accomplishments). He has also repeatedly cited WP:FRINGE in referring to Unification Church related subjects. I have not made any personal attack that I am aware of, but Hrafn keeps accusing me of doing so (without ever saying what specifically he regards as a personal attack), even taking the extraordinary step of tagging my talk page because of a content dispute. It seems that any time I have a content dispute where I criticize one of his edits, he calls it a personal attack without mentioning exactly what it is that he considers a personal attack or why he regards it as one. This is ironic in light of the fact that - in addition to the clear example above - he seems always to be picking fights with people, including rude comments (to another editor, which I happened to see) like "quit your tendentious whining". -Exucmember (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Exucmember, Jclemens & Mybesteffort hate me

Exucmember, Jclemens & Mybesteffort (the latter under previous anon-posts) have launched an unceasing campaign of personal attacks on me, both on this AfD & the article talkpage. Their descriptions of me have repeatedly included calling me "hateful" and "biased" and my attempts to correct this article's gross deficiencies as "virulent" and an "attack", as well as voluminous lesser snipping.

So why have they been doing it? I suggest that you follow Exucmember's (admittedly ill-intentioned) advice and "investigate" for yourselves. You might like to start with an examination of the state of the collection of UC-related articles prior to my intervention. Evidence of this can be found in:

The fact that this article itself stood for two years as a simple WP:COPYVIO of Kaufmann's blog autobiograpy.
the vast number of prod-notices on UC-related articles on User talk:Ed Poor that have resulted in deletion or redirect (you can look at the history of the redirected articles to see what they looked like beforehand)
The large number of non-notable articles that I've recently merged into List of Unification Church affiliated organizations (a list I created to avoid further prod-ing articles on non-notable UC-affiliated orgs). (likewise you can look at the history of the redirected articles)
Talk:Divine Principle#Subject and Object to see an outsider's baffled incomprehension of the contents of an article that I had just merged in (at the suggestion of its main author, a UC-regular).
The woeful standard of sourcing on such key UC articles as Divine Principle, Unification theology & Unification Thought.

The UC-regulars have generally failed to write good articles, and have collectively failed to self-police their claimed area of expertise for quality. Some of them are therefore throwing a hissy-fit that a mere outsider has the audacity to come in and attempt to clean this mess up. These few would like to eject me and go back to rebuilding their house of cards.

I'm frankly heartily sick of this bad-faith, abusive, eliminationist behaviour. I'll take a short break from this group of articles to lower my blood pressure. But do not think that these transparent tactics have succeeded in eliminating me permanently. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're unaware of it, the entire tone of this section is opposed to the sentiments found in Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. However, your criticism of the general writing ability of UC contributors is spot on. Please continue with that sort of constructive criticism. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

("Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Kaufmann How much evidence of a nominator's past questionable behaviour towards similar articles belongs in an AfD? 04:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)").

Discussion of the article itself should be on this page. The AfD talk page (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann) is intended for related or tangential issues which distract from the primary encyclopedic question of whether or not the article should be deleted. — Athaenara ✉ 06:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would include your comment here, my response now, and S.D.Jameson's comment above. Unless the comment begins with keep or delete (etc.), I don't think it belongs on an AfD page. Editors, please make your points in only a few sentences: bulk turns people off from participating. And WP:AGF. –M^T 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule (nor even an implied acceptance) of what you write here, M. My lengthy explanation of my rationale for my recommendation (merge and redirect) is well-accepted practice at AfD. I do agree that the 3O opinion posted here should be on the talkpage, and am moving it, and these subsequent comments, accordingly. ^S._D.Jameson 19:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]