Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:43, 5 March 2007 editEl Sandifer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,528 edits →[]: Not up for debate.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:46, 5 March 2007 edit undoMunta (talk | contribs)361 edits ←Undid revision 112848417 by Phil Sandifer (talk) - of course it ti up for debateNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.--> Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.-->


====]====
:{{la|Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Essjay}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>&#124;</tt>]<tt>)</tt>
:History currently at {{la|User:Essjay/RFC}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>&#124;</tt>]<tt>)</tt>


] who had been strongly opinionated during the RFC, has deleted the RFC on Essjay on the grounds it was "uncertified". Such action was discussed at the now deleted ], and a majority opposed deleteing it. David knew of that conversation. I understand David's desire to protect Essjay, but I feel the record of these events is important for Misplaced Pages's public credibility, especially since many people are just now learning about the situation from the New York Times article , etc. The idea that a technicality, i.e. that no two users had "certified" trying to resolve the dispute, would be used as justification for this deletion is offensive to me. Many, many users had obviously attempted contacting Essjay about this matter and the RFC itself (which didn't even start out as an RFC) wasn't even formatted with a section to allow certification until 2 hours before being archived. While I respect David's apparent true motivation in these actions, I feel the transparency of the community as a whole in dealing with this fraud is far more important. ] 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*(via edit conflict) This User RFC was commented on by over two hundred editors, several dozens of whom had previously attempted dispute resolution with the subject on his talk page. As it grew organically out of a previous discussion on a subpage of the ], it was not created from ] and thus did not have an explicit space for people to say "Yes, and I previously attempted dispute resolution with the subject, too."<p>A section specifically for certification was eventually added by ]; some few hours later, however, the RFC was marked as ], protected against editing, and moved off of ]. The question of deletion was raised on the talk page, where it received a handful of opinions in support and dozens vehemently against. Despite this, ], who had from the start mocked and belittled those seeking dispute resolution with such colorful and counterproductive section headings as "Jimmy Wales found to have lied about credentials, asks self to resign", engaged in the sort of mindless, robotic process-wonkery that he normally ] and deleted it anyway. Mr. Gerard's misguided rush to spare Essjay's fealings by trying to conceal the community's extreme displeasure with him is a day late and a sackful of banknotes short, given that the . &mdash;] 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedily undelete'''. Some people may wrongly see such action as a cover up, or an attempt to hide what has taken place. ] 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Undelete.''' (my comment here largely paraphrased from the comment I left on David's talk page)<br/>This serves as the best record of this dispute and the efforts of the contributors here to deal with the situation. Deleting this page leaves only the other fractured, uglier discussions—such as ]—as the record for anyone or any journalists coming here in the wake of the news coverage. Especially since the ] , which gave favorable coverage to Misplaced Pages based on the ''community's efforts'' to address this issue, I think it is for the benefit of the project to leave this record in place. By deleting this record of the discussion and the struggle of the community to come to terms with the deception of one of our best members, David has done the entire project a great disservice. It is a rather weak justification in the face of the good that the orderly discussion at this page did to hang the deletion on the reason that it is uncertified RfC. Not only did the page not even begin life as an RfC, but it could have been certified as a procedural issue without problem if this was simply a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's. If ever there was a time to ], then this was one of those moments—this article absolutely should not have been deleted on a technicality. Undelete this important historical record so that everyone, both inside and outside the project, can see how we work and understand that this project has the resiliancy to face and overcome failings of even our most respected members. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' All that's up now is a soft redirect to the straw poll. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*It was a lynch mob document phrased as an RFC; it failed to be a certifiable RFC so was killed. DRV can't vote personal attack pages back, and this was only an RFC to try to appear not to be a personal attack page - ] 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
**And if you really feel it was not deleted 100% per process and per the ''spirit'' of that process, please demonstrate how and why. And consider bringing an RFC or arbitration case, i.e. put up or shut up - ] 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
***Actually we can "vote" back what is claimed to be an attack page, or they can as I've never made an account. DRV can consider whether a page was deleted under a proper CSD criteria, G 10 in this case. Speedy deletion being a deletion that when through no process (AFD, Prod etc.)...thanks. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
*'''Speedy Undelete''' - While this situation is still developing, it is important to retain information that shows how wikipedia is dealing with this situation. Deletion of relivent material only adds weight to those that claim wikipedia does not take critisism. It is no good hiding behind process in these situations ] 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*David Gerard has been quite disruptive on this issue. He should know better. '''Undelete''' of course, it's absurd to delete such a page for lack of certification. When did rigidly following the written rules replace common sense? ] ] 16:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Undelete''' - Our critics and the press would have every right to characterize this as a cover-up, for that is what it is. The foolish thing is that what's being covered up speaks (or spoke) ''well'' of us: the community's overwhelming disapproval of the disputed behavior.] 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*David Gerard's strident, mocking commentary, carefully written parody and careless replies along with personal attacks, rather than helpful thoughts as to how the RfC might be brought into compliance (if it indeed was lacking), rather much speak for themselves. While I assume only good faith and sincere motives on his part, '''speedy undelete'''. ] 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. As one who has been critical of Essjay's faking credentials, but who deplores kicking people who are down and who stopped endorsing critical views at the RfC when Giano pointed out that we had said enough and that Essjay was probably not feeling very happy, I am still concerned that this deletion does more harm than good. I believe that trollish attacks were and should have been removed from the page. But many of the critical remarks were not trollish, and were expressing legitimate concern. It was certainly time to stop the criticism, especially as Essjay has resigned his powers and left. But there was no cause to delete it, especially as such an action may be seen by the press as a coverup. Also, the fact that it was not certified is irrelevant. It did not start off as an RfC, and was just moved there for want of a better location. ] ] 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedily overturn''', the good and the bad of this situation are very important to our learning as a community how to handle (and how not to handle) such situations, and we do not need to sweep this under the rug. To delete this as "uncertified" is a gross violation of ] a bureaucracy-we do not ignore the obvious and myopically stare at one undotted i. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy undelete''', deleted on a technicality when there were clearly dozens of editors certifying the basis for the dispute. ] 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy undelete''' Archiving in the middle of disputes is never a good idea, and deletion is even worse for the same reasons. We all want to draw a line under these events and move on but deletion of something this hot a recent will only lead to more acrimony. We are under the spotlight now from the press, how we deal with these problems is under scrutiny - do we want to show that we sweep stuff under the carpet, or should we show what an open process the wiki is? --] | ] 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy undelete'''. It is vital for Misplaced Pages's credibility that this discussion be visible. Any bureaucratic concerns about the formatting of the RfC were made moot when the page was moved. I have taken the liberty of restoring the page history and replacing the page with a pointer to this discussion, matching the current status of the mainspace article ]. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy undelete''' – this is essential as a record of a debate which included many sympathetic and sorrowful contributions, in contrast to the NYT's opening paragraph "In a blink, the wisdom of the crowd became the fury of the crowd. In the last few days, contributors to Misplaced Pages, the popular online encyclopedia, have turned against one of their own who was found to have created an elaborate false identity." We have nothing to hide. .. ], ] 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 17:46, 5 March 2007

< March 4 Deletion review archives: 2007 March March 6 >

5 March 2007

User:Essjay/RFC

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Essjay (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|MfD)
History currently at User:Essjay/RFC (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

David Gerard who had been strongly opinionated during the RFC, has deleted the RFC on Essjay on the grounds it was "uncertified". Such action was discussed at the now deleted talk page, and a majority opposed deleteing it. David knew of that conversation. I understand David's desire to protect Essjay, but I feel the record of these events is important for Misplaced Pages's public credibility, especially since many people are just now learning about the situation from the New York Times article , etc. The idea that a technicality, i.e. that no two users had "certified" trying to resolve the dispute, would be used as justification for this deletion is offensive to me. Many, many users had obviously attempted contacting Essjay about this matter and the RFC itself (which didn't even start out as an RFC) wasn't even formatted with a section to allow certification until 2 hours before being archived. While I respect David's apparent true motivation in these actions, I feel the transparency of the community as a whole in dealing with this fraud is far more important. Dragons flight 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • (via edit conflict) This User RFC was commented on by over two hundred editors, several dozens of whom had previously attempted dispute resolution with the subject on his talk page. As it grew organically out of a previous discussion on a subpage of the Community Noticeboard, it was not created from Template:RFC and thus did not have an explicit space for people to say "Yes, and I previously attempted dispute resolution with the subject, too."

    A section specifically for certification was eventually added by Doc glasgow; some few hours later, however, the RFC was marked as archived, protected against editing, and moved off of WP:RFC/USER. The question of deletion was raised on the talk page, where it received a handful of opinions in support and dozens vehemently against. Despite this, David Gerard, who had from the start mocked and belittled those seeking dispute resolution with such colorful and counterproductive section headings as "Jimmy Wales found to have lied about credentials, asks self to resign", engaged in the sort of mindless, robotic process-wonkery that he normally decries and deleted it anyway. Mr. Gerard's misguided rush to spare Essjay's fealings by trying to conceal the community's extreme displeasure with him is a day late and a sackful of banknotes short, given that the New York Times has specifically commented on it. —Cryptic 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedily undelete. Some people may wrongly see such action as a cover up, or an attempt to hide what has taken place. Giano 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete. (my comment here largely paraphrased from the comment I left on David's talk page)
    This serves as the best record of this dispute and the efforts of the contributors here to deal with the situation. Deleting this page leaves only the other fractured, uglier discussions—such as User talk:Essjay—as the record for anyone or any journalists coming here in the wake of the news coverage. Especially since the New York Times article, which gave favorable coverage to Misplaced Pages based on the community's efforts to address this issue, I think it is for the benefit of the project to leave this record in place. By deleting this record of the discussion and the struggle of the community to come to terms with the deception of one of our best members, David has done the entire project a great disservice. It is a rather weak justification in the face of the good that the orderly discussion at this page did to hang the deletion on the reason that it is uncertified RfC. Not only did the page not even begin life as an RfC, but it could have been certified as a procedural issue without problem if this was simply a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's. If ever there was a time to ignore all rules, then this was one of those moments—this article absolutely should not have been deleted on a technicality. Undelete this important historical record so that everyone, both inside and outside the project, can see how we work and understand that this project has the resiliancy to face and overcome failings of even our most respected members. —Doug Bell  16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All that's up now is a soft redirect to the straw poll. Durova 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It was a lynch mob document phrased as an RFC; it failed to be a certifiable RFC so was killed. DRV can't vote personal attack pages back, and this was only an RFC to try to appear not to be a personal attack page - David Gerard 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And if you really feel it was not deleted 100% per process and per the spirit of that process, please demonstrate how and why. And consider bringing an RFC or arbitration case, i.e. put up or shut up - David Gerard 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually we can "vote" back what is claimed to be an attack page, or they can as I've never made an account. DRV can consider whether a page was deleted under a proper CSD criteria, G 10 in this case. Speedy deletion being a deletion that when through no process (AFD, Prod etc.)...thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.43.238.69 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Speedy Undelete - While this situation is still developing, it is important to retain information that shows how wikipedia is dealing with this situation. Deletion of relivent material only adds weight to those that claim wikipedia does not take critisism. It is no good hiding behind process in these situations Munta 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • David Gerard has been quite disruptive on this issue. He should know better. Undelete of course, it's absurd to delete such a page for lack of certification. When did rigidly following the written rules replace common sense? Friday (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Undelete - Our critics and the press would have every right to characterize this as a cover-up, for that is what it is. The foolish thing is that what's being covered up speaks (or spoke) well of us: the community's overwhelming disapproval of the disputed behavior.Proabivouac 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • David Gerard's strident, mocking commentary, carefully written parody and careless replies along with personal attacks, rather than helpful thoughts as to how the RfC might be brought into compliance (if it indeed was lacking), rather much speak for themselves. While I assume only good faith and sincere motives on his part, speedy undelete. Gwen Gale 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete. As one who has been critical of Essjay's faking credentials, but who deplores kicking people who are down and who stopped endorsing critical views at the RfC when Giano pointed out that we had said enough and that Essjay was probably not feeling very happy, I am still concerned that this deletion does more harm than good. I believe that trollish attacks were and should have been removed from the page. But many of the critical remarks were not trollish, and were expressing legitimate concern. It was certainly time to stop the criticism, especially as Essjay has resigned his powers and left. But there was no cause to delete it, especially as such an action may be seen by the press as a coverup. Also, the fact that it was not certified is irrelevant. It did not start off as an RfC, and was just moved there for want of a better location. ElinorD (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedily overturn, the good and the bad of this situation are very important to our learning as a community how to handle (and how not to handle) such situations, and we do not need to sweep this under the rug. To delete this as "uncertified" is a gross violation of WP:NOT a bureaucracy-we do not ignore the obvious and myopically stare at one undotted i. Seraphimblade 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy undelete, deleted on a technicality when there were clearly dozens of editors certifying the basis for the dispute. Milto LOL pia 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy undelete Archiving in the middle of disputes is never a good idea, and deletion is even worse for the same reasons. We all want to draw a line under these events and move on but deletion of something this hot a recent will only lead to more acrimony. We are under the spotlight now from the press, how we deal with these problems is under scrutiny - do we want to show that we sweep stuff under the carpet, or should we show what an open process the wiki is? --Mcginnly | Natter 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy undelete. It is vital for Misplaced Pages's credibility that this discussion be visible. Any bureaucratic concerns about the formatting of the RfC were made moot when the page was moved. I have taken the liberty of restoring the page history and replacing the page with a pointer to this discussion, matching the current status of the mainspace article Essjay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy undelete – this is essential as a record of a debate which included many sympathetic and sorrowful contributions, in contrast to the NYT's opening paragraph "In a blink, the wisdom of the crowd became the fury of the crowd. In the last few days, contributors to Misplaced Pages, the popular online encyclopedia, have turned against one of their own who was found to have created an elaborate false identity." We have nothing to hide. .. dave souza, talk 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

Discussion put on a sub-page at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/Essjay. Please opine there.

Walt Sorensen

Walt Sorensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Overturn baised on the notability of Walt Sorensen as an artist, I shall quote from Misplaced Pages:Notability (artists) “notability as an artist is defined by the notability of his/her art. Notable art is: b) A piece acquired by government (national, state or major city) and put on public display.” Under this guide line Walt Sorensen has 6 notible art pieces. The 5 pieces that were displayed durring the Nantou are part of a permanent collection on public display in the Nantou city hall. The Last piece was a photograph of West Valley City including the E-center in West Valley City, this piece was commisioned by West Valley and 2 Prints were made of it. One is on public display in the Nantou Taiwan city hall, the other is on Public Display in West Valley City’s City Hall.photodude 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Please restore this to keep with the "X historical" notice. Same for Willy on Wheels, Pelican Shit, Supertroll, DNA vandal, North Carolina vandal, Videogamer!'s pages, and bring back the templates too, tag them with some notice about historical. I don't care much for the overinflated Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition. Just cut back the glorification and make it read like a school report: heh, now I got one over you wiki-admins! Dalbogue0 09:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Mecha as Practical War Machines

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mecha as Practical War Machines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Please temporarily copy this to my user space or e-mail me an XML dump so I can fork this article. I am primarily looking for the versions and authors before the first AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mecha as Practical War Machines), since I have an XML dump of it from its recreation to the second AfD (located at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mecha as Practical War Machines (second nomination)). It was a fairly well-written article, but totally unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --Transfinite 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Fascist Wikipedians

Category:Fascist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore)

Someone keeps deleting my Category of Fascist Wikipedians. I am a fascist and I should be allowed to have a category. Why is no one deleting the Capitalist Wikipedians category? Why is my category being singled out? Someone keeps doing a "speedy delete" on it. It is absurd that same category can be deleted over and over without discussion simply because it has been deleted once in the past supposedly. Billy Ego 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I misspelled it there. Billy Ego 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Because it was deleted once before, that that is justification to continually delete it? What kind of logic is that? What do you mean when you say it is a "recreation of deleted content"? Why was it deleted in the first place? And how can the content possibly be the same? What was the content the first time it was deleted? The content now is my username. Did it exist before I created it? If so, my username wasn't there. What "content" are you talking about? It's a category, not an article. Billy Ego 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we already nuked that, for the same reasons. Self-consciously offensive categories are divisive, inflammatory and have nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)