User:Geo Swan/discussion/Fazaldad revisions

This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's rough notes page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.

User:Iqinn made a series of controversial edits to the Fazaldad article, an article currently before {{afd}}.

User:Iqinn routinely makes edits to articles after they have weighed in to delete that article. It seems to me that once one has voiced a "delete" opinion, one has gone on record that the article in question can't be improved.

Of course, anyone, including someone who has weighed in with a "delete" in a still open {{afd}} is still entitled to excise truly problematic material -- like slander.

But it seems to me that all of these edits Iqinn has represented as improvements have had the effect of making the articles less viable. Since the "delete" opinion is a record that they think the article can't be improved, IMO, they shouldn't be making "improvements".

So I am reverting their recent edits. Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• For the record I am not accusing Iqinn of bad faith. I accept, at face value, that they honestly believe their behavior is policy compliant. Nevertheless, I believe their behavior in editing articles during {{afd}}, when they have voiced a "delete", is a serious mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In this edit with the edit summary "no question about identity", Iqinn excised the section on Fazaldad's inconsistent identification. This is an edit summary Iqinn has used dozens of times before.

As WP:RS have observed, there was great confusion over the captives' identities. The multiple names offered for some captives present more confusion than others. Some captive's multiple names only differed by a couple of letters. Other captive's multiple names differed wildly.

I have called upon User:Iqinn to discuss their concerns in a central place. My preference is to establish the multiple names for every captive known by multiple names, to help prevent confusion with other individuals with similar names. I am willing to discuss a compromise, where only some captives' multiple names are discussed.

I am very sorry to report that User:Iqinn has been completely unwilling to discuss this issue. Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In this edit with an edit summary of "link to the main article", User:Iqinn made a large change to this article.

Three different individuals have drafted sections covering the topic of Combatant Status Review Tribunals in the articles of captives who had an CSR Tribunal. I made several drafts, which were used broadly. User:Sherurcij drafted four explanatory openings, which he transcluded into a number of articles. Finally, User:Iqinn replaced both the passages I drafted, and the passages Sherurcij drafted, with their own draft.

I sought input from other contributors over the wording of this material. And I took other contributors input into account. Similarly Sherurcij sought others input and took others' input into account. I am very sorry to report that Iqinn has not asked for input from anyone else over their wording, and has not been open to input from other contributors. On the contrary, I am sorry to report that Iqinn's main response was that they don't need to get anyone's permission before making their edits.

In this edit Iqinn also removed references to Fazaldad's testimony. Fazaldad's testimony is a primary source. Iqinn's position in other discussion was that any use of a primary source was a violation of WP:OR. I believe this is a misinterpretation of policy. Policy doesn't say primary sources can't be used. It says assertions in primary sources don't establish notability. And policy says primary sources should be used with care. I opened a discussion at WP:NORN#Your_opinion_please... [1] over this issue, in another article. I believe I exercised proper care in my use of a primary source in this edit, and in this edit to Fazaldad. Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the quote of the allegations from Fazaldad's allegation memo with a summary.

• Prose has benefits over lists.
• Although I originally placed quotes from the allegations memos, like this one, in articles like this one, I now think this was a mistake, as the later allegation memos were several pages long. In general I think all the long quotes should be replaced with a prose summary.

In the other articles, where captives have been the subject of multiple reviews, there is a strong argument for doing this. The reviews are repetitive. Quoting pages of repetitive material makes the articles harder to read, and harder to understand. When I have replaced quotes of the allegations with a prose summary, I cover new allegations. I leave out allegations present in the earlier memos. I believe this makes the material both briefer, and easier to read. Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)