Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:26, 29 August 2007

29 August 2007

User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper and premature MfD closure by User:Radiant!. I am also nominating these other pages for DRV:

• User:Keegan/Sandbox/Donald BJAODN
• User:MichTheWeird/BJAODN
• User:Rickyrab/ April Fool's BJAODN
• User:TenPoundHammer/BJAODN and all of it's sub-pages.
• User:WindFish/BJAODN
  

Although I fully acknowledge that Radiant! was acting in good faith, I believe that consensus was determined incorrectly. Firstly, the MfD should have been allowed to run its full course; there was no valid reason for speedy deletion. Secondly, although little can now be done about the outcome of the BJAODN MfD and DRV, I don't think the consensus there was sufficiently strong (if it existed at all) to justify eradication of anything related to BJAODN; there was a substantial body of opinion arguing to Keep. Thirdly, I draw attention to User:TenPoundHammer's comments on the MfD: I created my personal BJAODN just for humor's sake -- I didn't even know until just now that the existing BJAODN had been put up for MfD. These pages are clearly not an attempt to circumvent community consensus; most of them pre-date the BJAODN MfD and are innocent personal collections of humour. Therefore, I disagree with the closing rationale. Walton 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I rewrote my nomination statement, as I was informed that the original statement was needlessly inflammatory. It can be found here. Walton 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorse. BJAODN has been discussed to death, several times, and the outcome was the reasonable close by Phil Sandifer, here, which was recently upheld at the admin noticeboard and here at deletion review. Making an end run around this community consensus to create Yet Another Attempt at BJAODN is really inappropriate, and I don't see how alluding to the Grand Admin Conspiracy is any help. >Radiant< 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If Walton is truly interested in having these pages undeleted (rather than using this forum as a soapbox), I strongly suggest that the above statement be rewritten. Lashing out at "...a small clique of admins..." and threatening to leave take the focus off the reasons for undeletion. Chaz 12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, and note I haven't had anything to do with the deletions of BJAODN. Community consensus said the pages should be deleted for the most part. Circumventing that ruling by hosting the duly-deleted content in userspace is not appropriate. Neil ム 12:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist at MfD. While I believe Walton One's DRV nomination is needlessly inflammatory, I do believe this close was improper. If one reviews the discussion, and looks at the history, you will see most of the pages under discussion pre-dated the BJAODN controversy, and as such, were not attempts to bypass anything. Some did (Rickyrab's, to be sure), but not most of them. I even called out a few pages that appear to have nothing to do with BJAODN. Maybe they should be deleted for other reasons, but that's not what the close indicated, nor does it appear to be consensus in the MfD. Indeed, discussion so far was equally for keep. Applying a judgment for one page to other pages that have no relation seems very wrong to me. I had informally asked Radiant! to review this (on his talk page), but unfortunately, Walton One decided to peruse an attack instead. While I deplore Walton's behavior, that doesn't make the close right. • Note that I believe Radiant! was acting in good faith; the MfD in question was modified during the discussion, so the discussion is quite confused. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The MfD was a reasonable close. The scope of the MfD includes these pages. Therefore they were validly deleted. --Deskana (apples) 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If the pages were not mentioned in the original MfD, the users should have been given some warning so they could make an offline copy if they wanted to. Carcharoth 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If people want offline copies, they're welcome to contact an admin and ask for the wikitext to be e-mailed to them. It doesn't make the deletion and less valid because they were not informed beforehand and did not have chance to save a copy offline. --Deskana (apples) 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I never said the deletions weren't valid. I'm just suggesting some courtesy. Carcharoth 13:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion - why not point any editors who are attempting to archive BJOADN towards the off-site copies of BJAODN? If, on the other hand, these are small, personal collections of new stuff (or combinations of new and old stuff, or old collections forked from BJAODN), then explain the GFDL concerns to them. If there is proper attribution of the items in the collection, fine. But any such userspace collections are likely to (a) grow out of control and (b) not be very easy to find and check. I suggest putting something in a policy or guideline along the lines of not using userspace as an archive of deleted material, with the usual exception of articles from AfD that are being worked on. Also point out that it is better to link to funny stuff, rather than copy it over. If it gets deleted, tough. Carcharoth 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:UP presently says, "this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content." >Radiant< 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Shemale

Shemale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am posting for deletion review under point that new information came to light after deletion. Shemale term has its own meaning and place apart from usage as derogatory. I have added 2 new refs one being from mit.edu which is WP:RS. I have proposed different lead section for deletion review here Talk:Shemale/DRV proposal. During AfD, term was believed to used only as derogatory to transwoman, and original meaning was either not known or no ref was available. It has also editor bias since it is derogatory to some people of a wikiproject. But in an uncensored encyclopedia, shemale deserves seperate article, and valid academic refs can be found by google search (shemale "secondary sex characteristics"). Lara_bran 09:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Seidokan

Seidokan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The founder of this style of aikido, Rod Kobyashi, is significant with the American aikido community and I don't see how it can be deleted based on CSD#A1. Perhaps the better place would be under Rod Kobayashi with a redirect from Seidokan but I would take care of that once I see the content since its been awhile. At the very least I can expand it a bit. I'm pretty sure at one point the style and founder articles were merged. Could the article be restored at least temporarily?Peter Rehse 08:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg

Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

Blatantly improper deletion, clearly violating policy. There were multiple objections to deletion in IfD and action taken, by way of improvements to article, to further support value of image. There was clearly no consensus to delete as required. The Misplaced Pages policy for deletion discussions is very clear: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept...." The guideline for judging whether the determinitive consensus exists is equally clear and emphatic: "When in doubt, don't delete." In explicit violation of our deletion policy, which calls upon the admin to conclude whether or not consensus to delete was reached in the discussion or not, closing admin imposed his own judgment about the image as rationale for its deletion.—DCGeist 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the full paragraph you're citing - it clearly explains that consensus is not a headcount. Endorse per NFCC. >Radiant< 09:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I read it. Now you do the same. You've raised the strawman of "headcount." The term is "consensus." Consensus to delete is arrived at or not via the discussion. Admin by policy examines whether consensus to delete was reached in discussion. If it was, image is deleted. If it wasn't, image is kept. If in doubt, image is kept. That's the policy. It's not terribly ambiguous. Like I say, you read it.—DCGeist 09:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If you'd just get off your soapbox for a minute and stop attacking people, you could look into how deletion debates (and review thereof) usually work. Policy can and does override opinion. Quite frequently pages are deleted if a majority wanted to keep them (or vice versa), because the minority side had solid arguments and the majority did not. That is precisely what happened here, and it is how Misplaced Pages works, regardless of how you choose to misinterpret policy. >Radiant< 09:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(From deleting admin) The image violated NFCC #8. The image was insignificant to the article. The caption on the image was "Bill Clinton on The Daily Show, August 9, 2004." The text in the article was "In one notable 2004 interview, former president Bill Clinton appeared on the show to discuss his autobiography, My Life. In the course of the interview, Clinton discussed the attacks on presidential candidate John Kerry's war record and the admissions of fraud by and no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton, the company closely associated with Vice President Dick Cheney." The image is not needed to understand the text and the text nor caption provides any sourced critical commentary as required for screenshots. I had no doubt that the image should be deleted to satisfy Misplaced Pages policy on images. -Nv8200p talk 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Classic_gun_pose.gif

Image:Classic_gun_pose.gif (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

Blatantly improper deletion. There were multiple objections to deletion in IfD. There was clearly no consensus to delete as required. One of the editors (User:Eleland) involved in the debate improved the content of the article (Pulp Fiction (film)) to demonstrate the importance of the image. In arbitrarily overriding the clear rules of procedure here, deleting admin rested his case in part on a couple of highly arguable assertions: (1) "The notion this image is iconic is unsupported by references." No references were asked for; they could have been provided if anyone felt there was an issue. Is is likely no one felt there was an an issue because Eleland included the inarguable fact that well-known artist Banksy created a parody of the image--difficult to imagine if it was not iconic. (2) "The statement that the weaponry in the image is a central aspect of the film is also unsupported." Incorrect. The importance of the weaponry used by the two characters seen in the image weilding their guns is clearly stated in the article. Furthermore, the result of admin violating our rules is that the article now contains no image of its top-billed star, John Travolta.—DCGeist 02:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(from deleting admin) (1)There was no assertion. It is a fact that no references were provided to support the claim that the image is iconic. The fact that a "pseudo-anonymous English graffiti artist" created a parody of a pop culture image does not make the image iconic. Banksy is not mentioned in the Pulp Fiction article. (2) Yes, the importance of the weapons is stated in the article, but that is original research and opinion unless citations are provided. If reliable, significant sources can be cited to support the statement that the image is iconic or the weapons are central to the film, I'll gladly reconsider the deletion, otherwise, the deletion should stand. -Nv8200p talk 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per WP:NFCC #3, using as few non-free images as possible. The article isn't significantly improved by adding this image. New England /Go Red Sox! 03:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review above. We're not here to give our opinion on the image and its value to the article; we're here to review the process by which it was deleted. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant rules of procedure (Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators, Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators), examine the specific course of events in this IfD process, and revisit your vote in that light.—DCGeist 03:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless, can you address the issue he raised? Remember these processes are *not* a vote. The admin likely deleted because he thought the policy trumped whatever arguments were given. —— Eagle101 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Nowhere have I suggested the process is a vote. If you do not know it already, please learn the relevant, very clear language on the policy page: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." Could you please address that?—DCGeist 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • look at your above statement. " ... events in this IfD process, and revisit your vote ... ". Thats why I mention it. Secondly our image policy (WP:NFCC trumps some guideline. Want the policy changed, raise it up on the policy talk page. —— Eagle101 03:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I haven't asked to change any policy. Maybe you will, when they're clarified for you. There's an image policy--and we debate in IfD whether an image meets that policy. And then there's a deletion policy--which you don't seem cognizant of, even though I just quoted it for you; it's not a "guideline"--which tells administrators what to do at the conclusion of that debate. There was no consensus that the image violated the image policy as required for deletion. It is clear that the deleting admin violated the deletion policy. If you believe the clear language of the deletion policy should be changed, you've got your own advice to follow.—DCGeist 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
            • How am I putting words in your mouth? Secondly note that WP:DGFA tells admins to use common sense. The image violates WP:NFCC. Admins often choose to do something that is not in line with the strict numeric !vote count, this appears to be an instance of that. —— Eagle101 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Also please note that non-free content cannot be edited, we simply don't have the permission to edit it! ;). There are many cases where admins don't always go with the strict !vote count, please remember that. —— Eagle101 04:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
              • (1) You put words in my mouth the first time when you implied that I was suggesting that the IfD process was a vote. I never made anything close to such a sugestion. You put words in my mouth a second time when you wrote, "Want the policy changed, raise it up on the policy talk page." I have never come close to suggesting here that policy be changed. I seek to have the clear language of the deletion policy respected and abided by.
              • (2) You point out that the guideline tells admins to use common sense. But common sense about what? Let's look at that guideline:

1. Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below)
2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Misplaced Pages participants.
3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
4. When in doubt, don't delete.

It is very clear, both in the context of its own page and in relation to the policy page, that in cases of deletion discussion (such as the debates on IfD) the admin is guided to use "common sense" in determining whether a consensus to delete has been reached or not. The admin who closes the discussion is not invited to decide on deletion/retention based on his own assessment of the image's adherence to the image policy. Nowhere. That is what the debate is for. The closing admin's job is to determine whether consensus to delete exists or not and act accordingly. Period. That is policy. Clear?

• (3) Actually, non-free images can most certainly be edited in certain ways--appropriate cropping is the primary example. However, to focus on the pertinent issues here, in the future, I will quote the relevant policy from the deletion policy page thus: ""The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept...." Good?—DCGeist 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• WP:DGFA tells admins to "use common sense" when deciding to delete. I still endorse because I feel the admin used common sense. Also from that guideline, "some arguments override others" so the argument that the image violated WP:NFCC points 3 and 8 overrid the unverified argument that the image was iconic. New England /Go Red Sox! 03:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see point (2) above Closing admin is not invited to use his "common sense" about whether or not the image adheres to the image policy. That is what the discussion is for. The admin is guided to use his common sense in determining whether or not consensus to delete exists or not. This is Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. It was clearly violated here.—DCGeist 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, deletion debates are not decided by headcount, and whether the image adheres to image policy is very much relevant, and can be an overriding argument even if a hundred people like the image. DRV nominator clearly misunderstands deletion policy in this area. >Radiant< 09:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• To reiterate, you've raised the strawman of "headcount," just as Eagle 101 raised te strawman of "vote." The term is "consensus." Consensus to delete is arrived at or not via the discussion. Admin by policy examines whether consensus to delete was reached in discussion. If it was, image is deleted. If it wasn't, image is kept. If in doubt, image is kept. That's the policy. It's not terribly ambiguous. Here it is: Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. Here's the guideline. Read it, learn it, remember it.—DCGeist 09:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's funny you should say that. Why don't you check who wrote that? >Radiant< 09:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Consensus does not trump policy. Neil ム 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)