Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chalst (talk | contribs) at 15:59, 16 December 2005 (→Deletion review protocol). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

Archives: 1 2 3 4

Votes

I think somewhere at the top of the page we should describe standardized wording for votes, particularly given that the rather contradictory verbs endorse (the deletion) and oppose (the undeletion request) amount to the same thing. Perhaps stick with, undelete and keep deleted. Marskell 14:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There is already a yellow box describing precisely that. In the change to Deletion review, the notion of reviewing a not-delete debate was introduced, and the old wording doesn't really fit that. -Splash 04:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes. To qualify then, we should follow the wording as presented. (And perhaps we should tidy the top of the page). Marskell 04:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to read through this stuff if we switched to a format similar to that used in RFA. Have three numbered lists, "Endorse", "Relist", and "Overturn". --RoySmith 18:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a vote. Is discussion. Splitting into votes not compatible with good discussion. -Splash 18:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand it's not a vote, but it's no more not a vote than RFA is not a vote. We're asking people to assert their preference for one of three alternatives; we might as well make it easy to figure out which of those they are asserting. --RoySmith 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is done by the bolding most people use. AfD works fine with this format. I see no need to change it here. Reading the discussion is vastly more important. -Splash 20:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We have tried similar structures in the past. It was a crashing failure. Despite our best intentions, it devolved into a mere vote because the comments lost their sense of chronology. You could not easily tell when a new fact was added to the discussion and whether it changed the tenor of the debate. (Sure, you could attempt to line up every timestamp but that's just not reasonable.) Even the bolding at the front of the comment is, in my opinion, problematic. It locks the writer into an opinion which they must then justify. I prefer a reasoned comment culminating in an opinion. But the current format is at least functioning. The segregated voting you propose never functioned. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Archived to history

(i.e. deleted)
If I trimmed any current threads, a firm spanking is always welcome. - brenneman 06:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Process questions

It is stated often times here that it is perfectly acceptable to create a new article with substantially different content then the original article that was put through WP:AFD. How then is this handled in the case of articles that have been protected as redirects due to vandalism or recreation. How long should such protection last. Several sources within Misplaced Pages suggest that Protection is harmful. Yet numerous articles seem to be sitting in permanently protected status. I have established that requests for protection does not apply in this case, but I am having a hard time sourcing any kind of actual procedure for what should be followed. At the time of the initial query I did determine that the article that initially raised my concern had recently gone through deletion review and had not gotten nearly the supermajority required for undeletion, and in fact stalled with a lack of consensus. Following the less then helpful directions which were available to me I relisted the article for review. However, I personally do not believe the original process to be incorrect at all, nor do I beleive the original content of the article in question is at all of value.

The second discussion was quickly closed based on the fact that the article in question had recently gone through deletion review. I was even accused of relisting untill the vote went my way (in spite of the fact that I had no part in the initial review).

My concern is that creation of a substantially different article has been effectively prevented in several cases and there is no apparent mechanism of which I am aware for correcting what protection policy clearly states is not within policy and which other sources show is considered harmful.

Questions then are as follows:

1. Does this even belong here? (From all that I can tell it does because it is a review of deletion process question)
2. How does one appeal an issue of a protected redirect?
3. How long should one wait when requesting review if they wish to be taken seriously?

If I am totally of topic or location by all means feel free to direct me in the correct direction.

— Falerin 15:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment It is of note that Undeletion Policy does not address this subject matter at all. — Falerin 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. There is no supermajority required for undeletion.
2. This is a discussion and belongs on the talk page or the village pump or some such. There's enough stuff on this front page without meta-discussions too.
3. Generally, deletion review will overturn a deletion when relevant new information comes to light. It doesn't deal directly with questions of protection except to mandate or reverse the underlying deletion. -Splash 15:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: In response to point one I stand corrected I thought I read that one was. In response to the second, the article has been moved by FreplySpang and I am quite fine with that, as I said I am happy to be redirected. As to point 3 thats more or less what I thought which is what causes the question to be raised at all because as a post fromWoohookitty on my talk page indicates RfP is not the correct place either. As near as I can tell there is no correct place. — Falerin 15:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the correct place if you have new information available about the original subject and would like to seek the overturning of the original deletion. I'm wondering which article we're dancing around here? Clearly it's been on DRV more than once in quick succession and recreated enough to have earnt itself protection. This sounds like a hint that shuld be taken, except that you indicate above that you are happy with the deletion. If you want to write an article on a different topic at the same title, just say so. -Splash 15:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's Leeroy Jenkins, and Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Leeroy Jenkins. I imagine the deletion review was dismissed because of all the sockpuppetry and shtuff in that debate and the fact that it was an article about a character someone had invented and the fact that it has since been recreated 10 times as nonsense. So the article will stay protected and deleted unless you plan to write about some other Leeroy Jenkins. -Splash 15:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case I actually am not particularly interested in Leeroy Jenkins at all. Though I will concede that it is that article that raised the general concern about process in the first place. However subsequent examination suggests that article is not in a unique position. Essentially the precedent being established is that if a person wants to ensure an issue never be covered all they need do is employ sockpuppets purporting the opposite view. I still firmly believe what is said in m:Protected pages considered harmful. I am happy with the process that occured in the Deletion and believe the correct path was followed. I am unhappy that the page has subsequently been protected indefintely and from all apperances permanently. The substance of my argument in the case of this article is here. However as I stated it is not this article I take issue with it is any indefinite or indeed permanent page protection which I believe is at variance with protection policy and indeed with deletion policy If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Now I openly acknowledge that sockpuppetry is a problem and a consistent recreation of an article immediately after its deletion in order to circumvent the vote is worthy of protection to deal with the sock puppets. However I do not believe such a thing should be in place indefinitely, or untill the article recieves some number of votes validating its existance. The latter is completely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages as I have come to understand it. — Falerin 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Leeroy Jenkins, since the issue has been raised the reason I care at all, since the subject is not of particular personal interest is that while the contents of the initial article were absolute rubbish, the meme itself however is widespread (exceedingly), has been used in various games outside World of Warcraft to which redirect is now enforced, and has featured on Jeopardy! and I find | 85k hits on the topic. Even those who voted for deletion in the intial discussion noted that if it were still conversed about after a period of time. — Falerin 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Deletedpage}} refers to a similar situation. It says that you should raise the issue on the talk page of the article. If you get no reaction, contact the admin who protected the page. Template talk:Deletedpage suggests posting at WP:AN if necessary. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, protected pages are harmful, and you won't find me arguing in support of indefinite protection of anything other than the Main Page. However, repeated recreation of an article as nonsense is no indication other than than one of trolling by the sockpuppets. Independent recreation of a proper article some time after an AfD would be quite different. The sort of information you mention above is probably a prima facie Deletion Review case, however, for a properly written nomination. However, the protecting admin, RickK is no longer with Misplaced Pages, and protection since 30th May is a very long time indeed, so I think unprotection is reasonable. That would not mandate the recreation of a deleted article, however. That said, the information you give above would be a prima facie Deletion Review case, I think. -Splash 16:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with every point you have made including the fact that such would not mandate the recreation of the article. Realistically, however, I suspect the article would be recreated for the reasons above mentioned. I also felt more or less as you have stated that I had a prima facie argument. However when I attempted to present the case, the argument was not even considered largely because I was directed to deletion review soon after another review had occured, one which was not well argued. Even making the issue has made me liable to being slandered so I am leery of raising the issue on Deletion Review myself. I am trying to become a productive and fruitful member of Misplaced Pages but I fear being a pest, no matter how convicted I may be, will not aid me. — Falerin 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, after some digging I found the recent deletion review debates, and I can understand why the second request was delisted. It's not uncommon for people (under various guises) to try battering DRV until it gives in, which only results in it not giving in. I don't honestly see the need to recreate the article, however, since all the information you mention is already mentioned in World of Warcraft#Community. I can unprotect it if you like, although I rather fear the result of doing so will be speedy deletion of what gets posted there, given that DRV has only recently considered the matter. Maybe work on the paragraph in the larger article instead? After all, is there any other encyclopedic information that would flesh out an article with more than that paragraph? -Splash 19:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

While I do feel that the article should be unprotected for the original stated reasons. I recognize your reservations as valid concerns. I would expand the World Of Warcraft paragraph but the editors of that article seem VERY possessive of the articles contents. Inclusion of material related to the meme itself but not to WoW may in fact be rather quickly reverted. Perhaps the key here is to wait... but I really wish there was some remotely effective guideline about what the wait period should be.

I'm going to avoid the specific case you mention above and answer only your original theoretical question. When a page has been deleted, it is not normally protected. Protection is only applied in response to abusive re-creations. It is considered an extreme measure. In general, the protection is applied long enough for the trolls/vandals to get tired and go away. On some articles, they lose interest in a few hours. On others, it can take many months.

If, in the meantime, a well-intentioned user wants to create a valid article at the same title, he/she may request reconsideration of the decision to protect the page. In general, you would start by making your case on the article's Talk page. Even though the article page is protected, the Talk page is generally editable. In your argument, you should acknowledge the history of vandalism and clearly articulate your position that this is a new article on a different topic even though it shares the same title. You should be fully prepared to cite your sources and maybe even to mock up a first draft of the article for independent review. Sometimes, that mock-up can be prepared on the article's Talk page but more commonly, it is prepared as a sub-page of your user-space. For example, User:Falerin/foo.

Yes, these are higher hurdles than we normally apply for contribution of a new article. Please remember that someone imposed this restriction in response to a demonstrated pattern of vandalism. We always try to assume good faith but there are limits. By the way, if no admin finds your comment on the deleted article's Talk page in a reasonable period of time, it is perfectly acceptable to go to the List of administrators and pick an admin at random in order to leave a note on his/her Talk page requesting a review.

Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

spelling check/fix

I did a spell check from the start and stoped at "Sholom Keller" (this article needs to be done). --Pat 15:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• my changes can be monitored by checking the history or simply clicking here --Pat 15:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In the future, please don't bother. You've created a huge number of edits which now must be carefully checked to make sure that you didn't accidentally (or intentionally) change the meaning of a comment. We appreciate spell-checking on article pages, policy pages, etc. Discussion pages (such as Deletion Review) are focused on the fluid and fact-based discussion. As long as someone's misspelling doesn't get in the way of understanding their point, please let it be. By the way, I do appreciate the fact that you already created the link (above) to facilitate our review. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I was getting ambitious. I figured I should start somewhere that was big, with lots of mistakes. (and I was bored!) Anyway. I now realize it's pretty difficult to keep track of things here as is already. So... unless I'm actually in the conversation, I'll try to keep to fixing spelling mistakes in articles. Cheers. --CylePat 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Accepting undeletion requests

I'm not sure that "User:David Gerard and User:the Epopt are also accepting requests directly" belongs in here either. Who cares?!? Many reasonable users will undelete when asked, do we list them all? The link provided makes it clear that this is part of a wikipolitical campaign against deletion review. To me, such things properly belong in user space, not on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. However I've not removed it myself since there's already been a slight edit skirmish over it. Friday (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It should say exactly that on the main page? There is no reason to cast widely practised courtesy as policy. Pilatus 15:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OH NOES WIKIPOLITICAL!! The skirmish being Splash vs Others. It's now linked to a category of those who've said they will. Note the relevant template warns that if you just use it to recreate the deleted article, it's susceptible to speedying, and if you put 'em in your userspace and just leave them hanging around as a habit, it is ill-favoured behaviour and not recommended - David Gerard 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review protocol

Greetings to those of you that work on Deletion Review. I myself have never generally participated here, either when this area was VfU or DRV, nor do I actively watch DRV now. I have a couple things I would like to say. First, I think it would be good to maintain an archive of DRV discussions. At some point a few months ago I became aware that an article that I had speedied had been challenged, and had no access to the debate until someone more active here linked to the discussion. Second, I would prefer if someone would contact the deleting Administrator to let them know a deletion they made had been challenged. In that first case, I had no idea that a deletion I had made had been challenged, and I would have welcomed the review of another user over my deletions. I value any input as to my Administrative actions. I would also have appreciated the opportunity to participate in the deletion review discussion, as the deleting Administrator. As it was, my only clue that a discussion had occured was that I happened to review my Deletion log one day and notice that an article I had deleted had been re-created, and mentioned DRV, but at the time I was not able to find the diff with the discussion in it. I would therefore like to ask that discussions here be archived, and also I would like to invite other users to contact me if any of my deletions are challenged, and ask the participants here to contact and administrators whose deletions are challenged. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix 03:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You should be able to search the history of the page for the article name. It might be good to have a list of all discussions that have been on DRV, so that one can see from the "What links here" page that there has been a DRV discussion. --- Charles Stewart 15:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)