Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 26: Difference between revisions
note about WP:AN note |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]]==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[:User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]]''' – While there is considerable concern that the page may not be helpful, there is a clear consensus that neither those concerns nor the deletion policy require this page's removal. [[User:Xymmax|<b>Xymmax</b>]] [[User_talk:Xymmax|<small><sup>So let it be written</sup></small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Xymmax|<small><sub>So let it be done</sub></small>]] 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) – [[User:Xymmax|<b>Xymmax</b>]] [[User_talk:Xymmax|<small><sup>So let it be written</sup></small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Xymmax|<small><sub>So let it be done</sub></small>]] 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{DRV links|User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair|article=}} |
||
<s>Procedural.Several users have objected to the close at deleting [[User talk:Jc37|admin's talk page]].</s> See reasoning below. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
<s>Procedural.Several users have objected to the close at deleting [[User talk:Jc37|admin's talk page]].</s> See reasoning below. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 12: | Line 20: | ||
*:Also, note that this page is merely a '''''copy''''' of [[User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]]. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 07:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:Also, note that this page is merely a '''''copy''''' of [[User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]]. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 07:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::And that both MfD discussions were taken in account in the closure. [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]]. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 17:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
*::And that both MfD discussions were taken in account in the closure. [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]]. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 17:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:I have requested "more eyes" on all of this at: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please.]] It also lists a bit of a chronology and other information which may be helpful. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:I have requested "more eyes" on all of this at: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please.]] (archived [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive219#More_eyes_please.|here]].) It also lists a bit of a chronology and other information which may be helpful. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete''': Overhwelming consensus was to keep, if not speedy keep. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete''': Overhwelming consensus was to keep, if not speedy keep. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 27: | Line 35: | ||
::There is a clear consensus even here to overturn, what are you so afraid of? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
::There is a clear consensus even here to overturn, what are you so afraid of? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''This is all too weird'''. I admit to being confused at the MfD. I still don't understand why this copy was, or would have been, created. Why are we discussing this MfD, and not [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair|the one which this page was a copy of]]? Why is [[User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair|this page]] undeleted, but not the one we are discussing (even if they are identical? I would like to know more about the Rlevse departure, and while the page in question doesn't explain anything to me, I am sure that deletion is not the way to clarification. If there is a place with an explanation of the Rlevse affair, I still think that a redirect would be helpful. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''This is all too weird'''. I admit to being confused at the MfD. I still don't understand why this copy was, or would have been, created. Why are we discussing this MfD, and not [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair|the one which this page was a copy of]]? Why is [[User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair|this page]] undeleted, but not the one we are discussing (even if they are identical? I would like to know more about the Rlevse departure, and while the page in question doesn't explain anything to me, I am sure that deletion is not the way to clarification. If there is a place with an explanation of the Rlevse affair, I still think that a redirect would be helpful. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and restore'''. Deleting this kind of thing isn't very clever. All it does is drive the drama offwiki. Let Giano have his say and his talkpages, and pay him as much or as little attention as you want. The fact that it's a duplicate of another talk page is entirely irrelevant because this isn't encyclopaedic content. It's to do with Wikipedia's governance and rules. And that's all DRV should have to say about it because it doesn't matter whether Giano's reasons for wanting a copy of this page in his userspace are valid or not. All that matters is that a good faith user ''thinks'' there's a valid reason.<p>I don't agree with Giano's reasons for keeping this page but you won't persuade someone to think differently by purging his userspace.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*'''Overturn and restore'''. Deleting this kind of thing isn't very clever. All it does is drive the drama offwiki. Let Giano have his say and his talkpages, and pay him as much or as little attention as you want. The fact that it's a duplicate of another talk page is entirely irrelevant because this isn't encyclopaedic content. It's to do with Wikipedia's governance and rules. And that's all DRV should have to say about it because it doesn't matter whether Giano's reasons for wanting a copy of this page in his userspace are valid or not. All that matters is that a good faith user ''thinks'' there's a valid reason.<p>I don't agree with Giano's reasons for keeping this page but you won't persuade someone to think differently by purging his userspace.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 11:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:So, to be clear (and this is a sincere question) - Fear of potential drama is a valid reason to not do what we would normally do? How is that not a case of: '''"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"'''? (quoted from [[Animal Farm]]) - Are we really setting up a situation where being an editor who others see as causing drama, gives a [[carte blanche]] pass for that editor to do whatever they want, regardless of the policies in place? I find that difficult to believe, and really difficult to endorse as a wikiphilosophy. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:So, to be clear (and this is a sincere question) - Fear of potential drama is a valid reason to not do what we would normally do? How is that not a case of: '''"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"'''? (quoted from [[Animal Farm]]) - Are we really setting up a situation where being an editor who others see as causing drama, gives a [[carte blanche]] pass for that editor to do whatever they want, regardless of the policies in place? I find that difficult to believe, and really difficult to endorse as a wikiphilosophy. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::No we are talking of an editor who knows Wikipedia policy inside out, and how to apply it better than most Admins. The page was created becase I suspected the original would be deleted to spare two Arbs' blushes (which it was - and will be again). Now be a good chap and restore the page before you begin to look even more foolish and we have to take this matter elsewhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
*::No we are talking of an editor who knows Wikipedia policy inside out, and how to apply it better than most Admins. The page was created becase I suspected the original would be deleted to spare two Arbs' blushes (which it was - and will be again). Now be a good chap and restore the page before you begin to look even more foolish and we have to take this matter elsewhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 35: | Line 43: | ||
*:::From your tone, I might guess that this may come as a shock to you, but the world doesn't revolve around you, Giacamo. People can actually take neutral actions merely for reasons related to policy and practice. |
*:::From your tone, I might guess that this may come as a shock to you, but the world doesn't revolve around you, Giacamo. People can actually take neutral actions merely for reasons related to policy and practice. |
||
*:::I'm sincerely sorry for you that (as you seem to indicate) you feel otherwise. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::I'm sincerely sorry for you that (as you seem to indicate) you feel otherwise. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::No, fear of potential drama isn't a valid reason to avoid doing what you'd normally do. But if you'd normally delete material out of someone's userspace when that user has a good faith belief that it relates to Wikipedia's governance, then the problem isn't with the user.<p>First, matters relating to Wikipedia's governance absolutely do belong on Wikipedia. They do not belong offwiki. Deleting people's userspace won't stop the discussion, it'll just drive it elsewhere, to nobody's benefit.<p>Second, Giano does have latitude in these things. The purpose of everything that isn't mainspace is to support the people who write the encyclopaedia and like it or not, writing the encyclopaedia is exactly what Giano does. And that absolutely does entitle Giano to latitude and tolerance, because Wikipedia without Giano would be Wikipedia with less drama—but also Wikipedia with a great deal less content. And encyclopaedic content is what we're here to provide. Kindly treat those who produce it with great respect.<p>The emerging consensus at this DRV is that we need to put up with this page. Good faith users ''need'' to discuss Rlevse's various errors and mistakes because it's a serious issue and it ought to affect how we choose our most trusted users in the future. We need to let the discussion flow naturally.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*::No, fear of potential drama isn't a valid reason to avoid doing what you'd normally do. But if you'd normally delete material out of someone's userspace when that user has a good faith belief that it relates to Wikipedia's governance, then the problem isn't with the user.<p>First, matters relating to Wikipedia's governance absolutely do belong on Wikipedia. They do not belong offwiki. Deleting people's userspace won't stop the discussion, it'll just drive it elsewhere, to nobody's benefit.<p>Second, Giano does have latitude in these things. The purpose of everything that isn't mainspace is to support the people who write the encyclopaedia and like it or not, writing the encyclopaedia is exactly what Giano does. And that absolutely does entitle Giano to latitude and tolerance, because Wikipedia without Giano would be Wikipedia with less drama—but also Wikipedia with a great deal less content. And encyclopaedic content is what we're here to provide. Kindly treat those who produce it with great respect.<p>The emerging consensus at this DRV is that we need to put up with this page. Good faith users ''need'' to discuss Rlevse's various errors and mistakes because it's a serious issue and it ought to affect how we choose our most trusted users in the future. We need to let the discussion flow naturally.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:::We typically give more latitude in userspace to editors. I don't disagree. But this is about a closure of an MfD. As I'm fairly sure you know, DRV isn't XFD-2. So I'm not sure how your comments apply to ''this'' discussion. (Though I have little doubt you'll clarify shortly : ) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 21:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::We typically give more latitude in userspace to editors. I don't disagree. But this is about a closure of an MfD. As I'm fairly sure you know, DRV isn't XFD-2. So I'm not sure how your comments apply to ''this'' discussion. (Though I have little doubt you'll clarify shortly : ) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 21:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Are you fit to be an admin, you are starting to seem otherwise? The page needs restoring, now go and get on with it! Do as you are told and we shall say mo more! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
::Are you fit to be an admin, you are starting to seem otherwise? The page needs restoring, now go and get on with it! Do as you are told and we shall say mo more! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::::Well, Jc37, there are several possible lines of argument at DRV. The most common one is that the closer failed to close in accordance with the consensus, but there are others. Sometimes, one can also reasonably argue that the !votes were not in accordance with policy, or that the closer failed to weigh the !votes correctly. What this boils down to is the argument that whether or not the closure was in accordance with the consensus, the consensus itself was wrong in some important respect. DRV does consider these instances, even where it means that to a certain extent it's necessary to re-argue the XfD.<p>In this case, my position is that to whatever extent that there was a consensus to delete—a matter that other users have already addressed adequately—the arguments supporting that consensus were untenable in the light of the facts.<p>Finally, my position is that the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia a better place. DRV contributors have wide latitude to make any analysis or engage in any discussion that serves that end.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*::::Well, Jc37, there are several possible lines of argument at DRV. The most common one is that the closer failed to close in accordance with the consensus, but there are others. Sometimes, one can also reasonably argue that the !votes were not in accordance with policy, or that the closer failed to weigh the !votes correctly. What this boils down to is the argument that whether or not the closure was in accordance with the consensus, the consensus itself was wrong in some important respect. DRV does consider these instances, even where it means that to a certain extent it's necessary to re-argue the XfD.<p>In this case, my position is that to whatever extent that there was a consensus to delete—a matter that other users have already addressed adequately—the arguments supporting that consensus were untenable in the light of the facts.<p>Finally, my position is that the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia a better place. DRV contributors have wide latitude to make any analysis or engage in any discussion that serves that end.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:::::That was actually a nice summary of DRV (in my opinion at least). |
*:::::That was actually a nice summary of DRV (in my opinion at least). |
||
*:::::Thank you for clarifying. |
*:::::Thank you for clarifying. |
||
Line 46: | Line 54: | ||
*::::::G10 reads "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, ''and serve no other purpose''." I think the argument here is that the page DID serve another purpose - that is to allow a debate of the issues by troubles users. Whether it did that well? ymmv.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
*::::::G10 reads "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, ''and serve no other purpose''." I think the argument here is that the page DID serve another purpose - that is to allow a debate of the issues by troubles users. Whether it did that well? ymmv.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:::::::I think you'd be hard pressed to call that a [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] debate on issues... - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::::::I think you'd be hard pressed to call that a [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] debate on issues... - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::::::I think it's true that there's an extent to which this page disparages Rlevse. And I think it's true that there's an extent to which it meets the criteria for G10. But there's always a judgment call to be made: just because something ''can'' be made to fit a speedy deletion criterion, does that mean the speedy deletion should automatically happen? In this case there are shades of grey.<p>First, those who're in high office can expect a degree of scrutiny, and some of that scrutiny may be hostile. It goes with the territory. In accepting a post as arbitrator, Rlevse was also accepting that he would be held to high standards and open to criticism. The fact that he's resigned and RTVed doesn't entitle him to escape a close examination of what he said and did while in post.<p>Second, there's a serious discussion to be had about copyright on Wikipedia and Rlevse is an excellent example of why. It would be arguable that Rlevse has broken the law. We take copyright seriously and we need to take it more seriously, and discussions about this need to be encouraged. Not censored.<p>Third, Wikipedia has a culture of openness that it's important to respect. Giano has good faith suspicions about what's gone on and attempts to delete the content he's examining justifies Giano's suspicions. In other words, there's an extent to which deleting the page makes Giano look as if he's in the right—it has exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*::::::I think it's true that there's an extent to which this page disparages Rlevse. And I think it's true that there's an extent to which it meets the criteria for G10. But there's always a judgment call to be made: just because something ''can'' be made to fit a speedy deletion criterion, does that mean the speedy deletion should automatically happen? In this case there are shades of grey.<p>First, those who're in high office can expect a degree of scrutiny, and some of that scrutiny may be hostile. It goes with the territory. In accepting a post as arbitrator, Rlevse was also accepting that he would be held to high standards and open to criticism. The fact that he's resigned and RTVed doesn't entitle him to escape a close examination of what he said and did while in post.<p>Second, there's a serious discussion to be had about copyright on Wikipedia and Rlevse is an excellent example of why. It would be arguable that Rlevse has broken the law. We take copyright seriously and we need to take it more seriously, and discussions about this need to be encouraged. Not censored.<p>Third, Wikipedia has a culture of openness that it's important to respect. Giano has good faith suspicions about what's gone on and attempts to delete the content he's examining justifies Giano's suspicions. In other words, there's an extent to which deleting the page makes Giano look as if he's in the right—it has exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:::::::Well, actually, based upon the comments in the discussions, the disparagement of the page was towards Giacomo. The intent, as described, was "making fun of" his making [[User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair]]; which was (presumably) "tracking" events that he seemed to feel were important in relation to Rlevse. |
*:::::::Well, actually, based upon the comments in the discussions, the disparagement of the page was towards Giacomo. The intent, as described, was "making fun of" his making [[User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair]]; which was (presumably) "tracking" events that he seemed to feel were important in relation to Rlevse. |
||
*:::::::So most of your comments in this latest post (I believe) aren't directly relevant. |
*:::::::So most of your comments in this latest post (I believe) aren't directly relevant. |
||
Line 53: | Line 61: | ||
*:::::::But anyway, as noted, this is about it being intended to disparage Giacomo. And obviously he considers it so, else he wouldn't want it kept "visible" for "evidence". |
*:::::::But anyway, as noted, this is about it being intended to disparage Giacomo. And obviously he considers it so, else he wouldn't want it kept "visible" for "evidence". |
||
*:::::::So, with all that in mind, again I ask: Why should this be any different than any other page which disparages? Why do you feel that this (I'm referring to the original page, and which would also apply to the copy) does not meet speedy deletion G10? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::::::So, with all that in mind, again I ask: Why should this be any different than any other page which disparages? Why do you feel that this (I'm referring to the original page, and which would also apply to the copy) does not meet speedy deletion G10? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::::::::I think it's not logically tenable to G10 a page for disparaging Giano, when Giano vocally wants to retain it. The only rational basis for a G10 is that it disparages someone who doesn't want it kept.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*::::::::I think it's not logically tenable to G10 a page for disparaging Giano, when Giano vocally wants to retain it. The only rational basis for a G10 is that it disparages someone who doesn't want it kept.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::::::::: We are concerned about what the target of a page feels about the page when dealing with BLP concerns. This isn't about BLP concerns. And I still have not seen any argument which suggests that the page is ''not'' disparagement. And that was true in the two MfD discussions, and it's true here. Rather than looking at '''bolded votes''', I'm looking at what is actually being ''said''. |
*::::::::: We are concerned about what the target of a page feels about the page when dealing with BLP concerns. This isn't about BLP concerns. And I still have not seen any argument which suggests that the page is ''not'' disparagement. And that was true in the two MfD discussions, and it's true here. Rather than looking at '''bolded votes''', I'm looking at what is actually being ''said''. |
||
*:::::::::And you even suggest that the page is somewhat disparaging to Rlevse. |
*:::::::::And you even suggest that the page is somewhat disparaging to Rlevse. |
||
Line 65: | Line 73: | ||
*::::::::::and even looking at #4 here: [[meta:Founding_principles]]. |
*::::::::::and even looking at #4 here: [[meta:Founding_principles]]. |
||
*:::::::::To use your term, I think your position that this is appropriate (or even that it's merely not contrary to existing policy) is just not logically tenable. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::::::::To use your term, I think your position that this is appropriate (or even that it's merely not contrary to existing policy) is just not logically tenable. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*{{unindent}}I'm confused. I thought it was your position that Giano was the target of the disparagement?—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*{{unindent}}I'm confused. I thought it was your position that Giano was the target of the disparagement?—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:Yes. I was merely noting that you (and for that matter, the nominator of both MfDs) also felt that the page was disparaging, though you each suggested it was disparaging towards Rlevse. So that still makes it disparaging to a specific individual. Sorry for not being clearer. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:Yes. I was merely noting that you (and for that matter, the nominator of both MfDs) also felt that the page was disparaging, though you each suggested it was disparaging towards Rlevse. So that still makes it disparaging to a specific individual. Sorry for not being clearer. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::No, no need to apologise, that's okay. What I said about disparagement of Rlevse was that there was "an extent to which" it was taking place, but then I explained the reasons why I didn't think that trumped Giano's wish to have this page in his userspace. You came back and said that in your view, the disparagement was towards Giano. I said that it didn't make sense to me to delete material out of Giano's userspace, that Giano wanted to keep, because it was disparaging of Giano. And I think that's where we are with G10, aren't we?<p>You've now introduced a question about whether the page was appropriate in view of the five pillars and Jimbo's statement of principles, and I understand that argument but disagree with it. This is a userspace page that's (at least tangentially) relevant to Wikipedia's governance and copyright on Wikipedia. Such material strikes me as reasonable to keep in userspace.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*::No, no need to apologise, that's okay. What I said about disparagement of Rlevse was that there was "an extent to which" it was taking place, but then I explained the reasons why I didn't think that trumped Giano's wish to have this page in his userspace. You came back and said that in your view, the disparagement was towards Giano. I said that it didn't make sense to me to delete material out of Giano's userspace, that Giano wanted to keep, because it was disparaging of Giano. And I think that's where we are with G10, aren't we?<p>You've now introduced a question about whether the page was appropriate in view of the five pillars and Jimbo's statement of principles, and I understand that argument but disagree with it. This is a userspace page that's (at least tangentially) relevant to Wikipedia's governance and copyright on Wikipedia. Such material strikes me as reasonable to keep in userspace.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:::For the first part, let's be clear: I was and am talking about the original. The closure was based upon both discussions, applying comments from both to the question of whether the original should be kept. (Forcing people to copy/paste comments which are relevant to both discussions, or at least not acknowledging that comments from both discussions applied to the question seems to me to fly in the face of attempting to discern a true consensus. Do you disagree?) And so by extension, the copy should be deleted if the original was. That is to say, if the content of the original is G10, then any direct copy of the original would also be G10. (one of the fundamentals behind G4.) |
*:::For the first part, let's be clear: I was and am talking about the original. The closure was based upon both discussions, applying comments from both to the question of whether the original should be kept. (Forcing people to copy/paste comments which are relevant to both discussions, or at least not acknowledging that comments from both discussions applied to the question seems to me to fly in the face of attempting to discern a true consensus. Do you disagree?) And so by extension, the copy should be deleted if the original was. That is to say, if the content of the original is G10, then any direct copy of the original would also be G10. (one of the fundamentals behind G4.) |
||
*:::And so, Giacomo keeping a copy of the original in his userspace, because he wants it as evidence- obviously because he feels it's disparaging - only helps confirm the application of G10 to the original. And again, if the original goes, so too should the copy. |
*:::And so, Giacomo keeping a copy of the original in his userspace, because he wants it as evidence- obviously because he feels it's disparaging - only helps confirm the application of G10 to the original. And again, if the original goes, so too should the copy. |
||
Line 74: | Line 82: | ||
*:::But if you agree that a.) disparagement is a part of the G10 criteria and b.) that the page was disparaging of one or more individuals (regardless of how it was being done), then I would presume that you would endorse the deletion, under G10. To do otherwise would seem to be directly contrary to every policy and guideline we have on civility/NPA. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::But if you agree that a.) disparagement is a part of the G10 criteria and b.) that the page was disparaging of one or more individuals (regardless of how it was being done), then I would presume that you would endorse the deletion, under G10. To do otherwise would seem to be directly contrary to every policy and guideline we have on civility/NPA. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::*Jc37, this is now entering the realms of the ridiculous, there was an overwhelming consensus to '''keep''' this page at AFD. Here, there is an overwhelming consensus to '''restore''' it. It seems to me that you are now being obstructive. Just restore the page please. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
:::*Jc37, this is now entering the realms of the ridiculous, there was an overwhelming consensus to '''keep''' this page at AFD. Here, there is an overwhelming consensus to '''restore''' it. It seems to me that you are now being obstructive. Just restore the page please. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::::I agree that disparagement is part of the G10 criteria and I agree that there's an extent to which this page was disparaging of Rlevse but I don't endorse the deletion. There are times when someone's so senior and their actions are so unfortunate that it becomes acceptable to allow mildly critical or disparaging material; see [[Essjay controversy]] for an example of this that's survived in the mainspace. I would not endorse a G10 deletion of Essjay-related material and to my mind, the same applies to Rlevse.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*::::I agree that disparagement is part of the G10 criteria and I agree that there's an extent to which this page was disparaging of Rlevse but I don't endorse the deletion. There are times when someone's so senior and their actions are so unfortunate that it becomes acceptable to allow mildly critical or disparaging material; see [[Essjay controversy]] for an example of this that's survived in the mainspace. I would not endorse a G10 deletion of Essjay-related material and to my mind, the same applies to Rlevse.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:::::So to make certain I understand your perspective: You agree that disparagement is part of G10, and that G10 is policy and is appropriate in most cases. But that, because you see this as being in relation to recent events around Rlevse, this should be considered an extraordinary situation? And therefore, essentially, you feel G10 doesn't apply per [[WP:IAR]]? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::::So to make certain I understand your perspective: You agree that disparagement is part of G10, and that G10 is policy and is appropriate in most cases. But that, because you see this as being in relation to recent events around Rlevse, this should be considered an extraordinary situation? And therefore, essentially, you feel G10 doesn't apply per [[WP:IAR]]? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::::::I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator ''has'' to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion. All kinds of speedy deletion were originally specific applications of IAR. Nor do I agree that G10 is "appropriate in most cases". My position is that where a speedy deletion criterion applies, the administrator must then make a judgment call about whether, in view of all the circumstances, it's appropriate to actually press the "delete" button—in other words, the deleter must have made a positive decision to delete. The closer is then accountable to DRV for that decision. DRV will not necessarily just assess whether the closer strictly applied policy; a judgment call ''has'' been made and DRV contributors may take into account a wide range of factors. This is what I'm doing.<p>I've explained why, although you have an arguable case based on strict application of one particular policy, I believe that the correct judgment call in the circumstances would be not to delete the page. (Meanwhile, others have been explaining why the deletion wasn't in accordance with the consensus either. I haven't addressed that because the matter is well covered already.)<p>Quite aside from these things, I ''also'' think the circumstances around Rlevse are exceptional and will need to be considered with the absolute maximum of transparency. Our position on copyright violations is as vulnerable as our position on BLPs was after the Siegenthaler incident and blindly following the letter of the rules is inappropriate in the circumstances. I think it's quite possible that there will need to be some rule-ignoring in order to get a fully transparent discussion going.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*::::::I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator ''has'' to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion. All kinds of speedy deletion were originally specific applications of IAR. Nor do I agree that G10 is "appropriate in most cases". My position is that where a speedy deletion criterion applies, the administrator must then make a judgment call about whether, in view of all the circumstances, it's appropriate to actually press the "delete" button—in other words, the deleter must have made a positive decision to delete. The closer is then accountable to DRV for that decision. DRV will not necessarily just assess whether the closer strictly applied policy; a judgment call ''has'' been made and DRV contributors may take into account a wide range of factors. This is what I'm doing.<p>I've explained why, although you have an arguable case based on strict application of one particular policy, I believe that the correct judgment call in the circumstances would be not to delete the page. (Meanwhile, others have been explaining why the deletion wasn't in accordance with the consensus either. I haven't addressed that because the matter is well covered already.)<p>Quite aside from these things, I ''also'' think the circumstances around Rlevse are exceptional and will need to be considered with the absolute maximum of transparency. Our position on copyright violations is as vulnerable as our position on BLPs was after the Siegenthaler incident and blindly following the letter of the rules is inappropriate in the circumstances. I think it's quite possible that there will need to be some rule-ignoring in order to get a fully transparent discussion going.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:::::::''"I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator ''has'' to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion."'' - None of us "has" to do anything, of course. Though I might suggest that ''in most cases'' we should probably delete copyvio and unsourced BLP kerfuffle on sight. |
*:::::::''"I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator ''has'' to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion."'' - None of us "has" to do anything, of course. Though I might suggest that ''in most cases'' we should probably delete copyvio and unsourced BLP kerfuffle on sight. |
||
*:::::::That said, attack pages should be deleted on sight. And I doubt you disagree in most cases. It's not collegiate in any sense. And definitely not [[WP:CIVIL]]. And we have many policies and guidelines concerning it. [[WP:NPA]] in particular. |
*:::::::That said, attack pages should be deleted on sight. And I doubt you disagree in most cases. It's not collegiate in any sense. And definitely not [[WP:CIVIL]]. And we have many policies and guidelines concerning it. [[WP:NPA]] in particular. |
||
Line 84: | Line 92: | ||
*:::::::Incidentally, speaking of transparency. Prior to this DRV, I had a [[WP:AGF|good faith]] request on my talk page to restore it so that it could be viewed by "voters" in relation to some questions by Giacomo. While I'm not certain I did the right thing there (as I noted there), I erred on the side of transparency. And '''''that''''' (in my opinion) is where the WP:IAR comes in. Not in generally saying "keep just-in-case it's needed for transparency". |
*:::::::Incidentally, speaking of transparency. Prior to this DRV, I had a [[WP:AGF|good faith]] request on my talk page to restore it so that it could be viewed by "voters" in relation to some questions by Giacomo. While I'm not certain I did the right thing there (as I noted there), I erred on the side of transparency. And '''''that''''' (in my opinion) is where the WP:IAR comes in. Not in generally saying "keep just-in-case it's needed for transparency". |
||
*:::::::Also, looking at our discussion, I think it's hardly tenable for anyone to suggest that any of the "votes" which say that there is '''''no policy-based reason to delete''''', are accurate in any way. There is indeed a policy-based reason to delete. It's just that you (and some others) appear disagree that the policy should be '''''applied''''' in this case. And that [[WP:IAR]] should apply instead. Mostly to avoid potential on-wiki drama, and to allow transparency for events seemingly tangently related to events just prior to Rlevse's retirement. You know, that sounds odd, even typing it. I feel like we're creating an Erdros number related to Rlevse events. (Or if you prefer, six degrees of separation from Rlevse events.) You now have me wondering: At what point is the association not relevant, and just an excuse? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 21:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::::::Also, looking at our discussion, I think it's hardly tenable for anyone to suggest that any of the "votes" which say that there is '''''no policy-based reason to delete''''', are accurate in any way. There is indeed a policy-based reason to delete. It's just that you (and some others) appear disagree that the policy should be '''''applied''''' in this case. And that [[WP:IAR]] should apply instead. Mostly to avoid potential on-wiki drama, and to allow transparency for events seemingly tangently related to events just prior to Rlevse's retirement. You know, that sounds odd, even typing it. I feel like we're creating an Erdros number related to Rlevse events. (Or if you prefer, six degrees of separation from Rlevse events.) You now have me wondering: At what point is the association not relevant, and just an excuse? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 21:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::::::::Well, if it was the copyvio, unsourced BLP or attack page that you mention, I'd be strongly in the "endorse" camp. But it's stretching things entirely too far to call this an attack page. It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies.<p>I've said before that your "main concern" makes no sense to me at all. If it's in Giano's userspace and Giano wants to keep it, then a deletion on the grounds that it disparages Giano himself is not a logical response.<p>To my mind the Rlevse affair calls into question: (1) how and why we choose our most senior community figures; (2) on what basis we choose to trust them; (3) how they're mentored and supervised; (4) how we select and vet our most highly-recommended articles; and (5) our attitude to sources, particularly how closely these should be followed in a featured article (and as an aside, I'm a great deal more persuaded by Risker's remarks than by SandyGeorgia's). I believe that any material in userspace to any of these ends, widely interpreted, should be tolerated for the time being.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*::::::::Well, if it was the copyvio, unsourced BLP or attack page that you mention, I'd be strongly in the "endorse" camp. But it's stretching things entirely too far to call this an attack page. It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies.<p>I've said before that your "main concern" makes no sense to me at all. If it's in Giano's userspace and Giano wants to keep it, then a deletion on the grounds that it disparages Giano himself is not a logical response.<p>To my mind the Rlevse affair calls into question: (1) how and why we choose our most senior community figures; (2) on what basis we choose to trust them; (3) how they're mentored and supervised; (4) how we select and vet our most highly-recommended articles; and (5) our attitude to sources, particularly how closely these should be followed in a featured article (and as an aside, I'm a great deal more persuaded by Risker's remarks than by SandyGeorgia's). I believe that any material in userspace to any of these ends, widely interpreted, should be tolerated for the time being.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 21:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:(de-dent) - '''''It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies''''' - Ok, I've said it several times, and apparently it's being missed. I am referring to the original page. and was doing so in the closure. This DRV has issues if just on the face of being a pseudo-procedural nom (though scott mac addressed that immediately), and that a copy of a page is being DRV'ed rather than the page itself. |
*:(de-dent) - '''''It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies''''' - Ok, I've said it several times, and apparently it's being missed. I am referring to the original page. and was doing so in the closure. This DRV has issues if just on the face of being a pseudo-procedural nom (though scott mac addressed that immediately), and that a copy of a page is being DRV'ed rather than the page itself. |
||
*:So let me ask you directly: |
*:So let me ask you directly: |
||
Line 94: | Line 102: | ||
*:#Is the main thrust of your concern about the talk page. And would retaining the original talk page as a protected archive, while deleting the associated main page (and any and all copies of the main page or talk page), address with your concerns? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:#Is the main thrust of your concern about the talk page. And would retaining the original talk page as a protected archive, while deleting the associated main page (and any and all copies of the main page or talk page), address with your concerns? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:Some of these questions seem obvious to me, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance that you're trying to convey. So I would appreciate your responses/thoughts. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:Some of these questions seem obvious to me, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance that you're trying to convey. So I would appreciate your responses/thoughts. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::(1) I think that [[User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]] is mildly disparaging of Rlevse. I feel that in view of all the surrounding facts and circumstances, to conclude that it's an "attack page" is a bit too strong. It has other purposes than just to disparage anyone. Yes, on the face of it it's humour but there's a serious undercurrent.<p>(2) I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said. I think where we're disconnecting is, I suspect your position is that this is one of the cases where policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus. It doesn't; there are times when policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus, but other times when consensus trumps a strict reading of policy. I'm afraid that I think this is one of the latter. The background to this is quite complicated and nuanced and it wasn't envisaged when the policies were written.<p>(3) I think I've answered this under the previous point.<p>(4) I'm talking about the actual page that's the subject of this DRV (which is the version from Giano's userspace). I feel if it's to be retained then it's to be retained--the whole thing, edit history and all.<p>(5) Of course, you're right to say it's nonsensical to delete the source page but keep the copy. If this DRV concludes that you're to be overturned, then this DRV has effectively decided that the second MfD has overwritten the first.<p>(6) I haven't considered the question of whether to protect the original page, and that's not within DRV's purview. However, I will go so far as to say, I think that it's unfortunate that the same closer dealt with both MfDs, and in the circumstances you should probably take it that if the consensus at this DRV is to overturn you, then it means you're through performing any further admininstrative actions on that page. If you feel strongly that it ought to be protected, then I suggest you should persuade another admin to do it.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*::(1) I think that [[User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]] is mildly disparaging of Rlevse. I feel that in view of all the surrounding facts and circumstances, to conclude that it's an "attack page" is a bit too strong. It has other purposes than just to disparage anyone. Yes, on the face of it it's humour but there's a serious undercurrent.<p>(2) I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said. I think where we're disconnecting is, I suspect your position is that this is one of the cases where policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus. It doesn't; there are times when policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus, but other times when consensus trumps a strict reading of policy. I'm afraid that I think this is one of the latter. The background to this is quite complicated and nuanced and it wasn't envisaged when the policies were written.<p>(3) I think I've answered this under the previous point.<p>(4) I'm talking about the actual page that's the subject of this DRV (which is the version from Giano's userspace). I feel if it's to be retained then it's to be retained--the whole thing, edit history and all.<p>(5) Of course, you're right to say it's nonsensical to delete the source page but keep the copy. If this DRV concludes that you're to be overturned, then this DRV has effectively decided that the second MfD has overwritten the first.<p>(6) I haven't considered the question of whether to protect the original page, and that's not within DRV's purview. However, I will go so far as to say, I think that it's unfortunate that the same closer dealt with both MfDs, and in the circumstances you should probably take it that if the consensus at this DRV is to overturn you, then it means you're through performing any further admininstrative actions on that page. If you feel strongly that it ought to be protected, then I suggest you should persuade another admin to do it.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:::For #1 - Thanks for answering. Though there are a lot of "hints" at things that I'm not sure of what you are wanting to convey. What do ''you'' consider the "serious undercurrent" to that page, for example? |
*:::For #1 - Thanks for answering. Though there are a lot of "hints" at things that I'm not sure of what you are wanting to convey. What do ''you'' consider the "serious undercurrent" to that page, for example? |
||
*:::'''''" I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said."''''' - Really? Other than ''maybe'' [[User:Eluchil404]], I don't see where anyone actually assessed the consensus, other than blankly asserting that the closure was contrary to consensus. I '''''do''''' see several suggesting overturning based upon concerns about on-wiki drama (and the assertion that this should be [[WP:IAR]] kept due to transparency concerns). But actual '''''explanation''''' concerning assessment of '''the closure''' would appear to be decidedly lacking. |
*:::'''''" I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said."''''' - Really? Other than ''maybe'' [[User:Eluchil404]], I don't see where anyone actually assessed the consensus, other than blankly asserting that the closure was contrary to consensus. I '''''do''''' see several suggesting overturning based upon concerns about on-wiki drama (and the assertion that this should be [[WP:IAR]] kept due to transparency concerns). But actual '''''explanation''''' concerning assessment of '''the closure''' would appear to be decidedly lacking. |
||
Line 104: | Line 112: | ||
*:::Well, so much for my good faithed attempt to discern your perspective on the closure. |
*:::Well, so much for my good faithed attempt to discern your perspective on the closure. |
||
*:::And since for much of this thread you claim that you were merely talking about the sole copy nommed here, while I was talking about all the pages (because I, in good faith, would actually like a discussion about the whole of this, rather than what I'm seeing in this DRV of cherry picking, only nomming a copy of a deleted page, and seemingly creating confusion, and trying to use that confusion to get a result that's favourable to IWANTIT and other blank assertions), this whole thread has us apparently talking past each other, even though I, in good faith, was trying to make a real attempt to discern your POV. So anyway, I guess that there's little point to continue to ask, if you're not interested in answering. Thanks anyway. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::And since for much of this thread you claim that you were merely talking about the sole copy nommed here, while I was talking about all the pages (because I, in good faith, would actually like a discussion about the whole of this, rather than what I'm seeing in this DRV of cherry picking, only nomming a copy of a deleted page, and seemingly creating confusion, and trying to use that confusion to get a result that's favourable to IWANTIT and other blank assertions), this whole thread has us apparently talking past each other, even though I, in good faith, was trying to make a real attempt to discern your POV. So anyway, I guess that there's little point to continue to ask, if you're not interested in answering. Thanks anyway. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*::::Well, I [[WP:AGF|don't think that you intended]] to lay a trap for me, but a trap exists. I won't repeat the background and history to the Rlevse affair here because if I do, then some genius will G10 the DRV. Can I take it that where you haven't answered what I've said, you agree with it?—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 11:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' no consensus to delete at MfD. no policy-based reason to delete. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 17:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn''' no consensus to delete at MfD. no policy-based reason to delete. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 17:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Sad overturn''' I'd have !voted to delete had I known of it, but I don't think it meets speedy guidelines and the !vote was clearly in support of keeping. Bah. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Sad overturn''' I'd have !voted to delete had I known of it, but I don't think it meets speedy guidelines and the !vote was clearly in support of keeping. Bah. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 133: | Line 142: | ||
*:::For this page, I don't think it is even mildly disparaging for the person, because it is not seriously disparaging of the person. To the extent that a page disparages actions or events, without getting personal, I think it acceptable. |
*:::For this page, I don't think it is even mildly disparaging for the person, because it is not seriously disparaging of the person. To the extent that a page disparages actions or events, without getting personal, I think it acceptable. |
||
*:::I would prefer to only comment on the content, with the copy being a red herring that some of us have chased in parallel. G4/G8 technical questions are not important, just whether such content is acceptable or not. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:::I would prefer to only comment on the content, with the copy being a red herring that some of us have chased in parallel. G4/G8 technical questions are not important, just whether such content is acceptable or not. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
* Endorse. Death to poisonous crap. Those who produce it must be strongly encouraged to do it elsewhere if at all. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*:Poisonous? Maybe. Is there further reading somewhere about wiki-poisonous effects of such stuff, or evidence of past poisonings by the users involved? These are certainly reasons for deletion accepted at MfD. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment''' directed to jc37, but posted here because it's mildly relevant and for the sake of trying to keep things (mostly) in one place. jc37, in your closing of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]] you made two assertions. You then also copied those assertions to your closing of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair]], and also you subsequently posted links to both those pages at several noticeboards. |
|||
The first statement I have in mind is "the author makes it clear below that that is the intent" (the intent being "to disparage" "their subject or some other entity" and the author being myself). I did not make any comment in the MfD that can be interpreted to mean that my intent when creating the page was to disparage an individual or entity. I therefore request that you withdraw this statement. As far as I can see, it is false and is presumably the result of a misunderstanding. |
|||
(I also do not agree that the original page is intended to disparage an individual. As its author, I am the only person who can comment authoritatively on the intention. The page comments - through humour - on a viewpoint or set of viewpoints. Not on an individual. It is totally in the spirit of commenting on content, not on the contributor.) |
|||
The second statement I have in mind is "The suggested intent to engage in substantial recreations". While it is indeed correct that Giano, unwisely in my view, threatened to repeatedly recreate a version of the page, I myself did not participate in such recreations nor did I indicate that I would do so. Your statement, in the context of closing an MfD in which you also make allegations about the intentions of the page author, might very easily be misunderstood to mean that I had suggested an intention on my part to recreate the page if deleted. I would therefore like you to clarify this. |
|||
(To avoid confusion; I have no objections, then or now, to the page being salted if it was, or is, deleted.) |
|||
--[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 12:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
⚫ | |||
====[[OneSavings]] (closed)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
||
* '''[[OneSavings]]''' – Restored by deleting admin – -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|< |
* '''[[OneSavings]]''' – Restored by deleting admin – -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#307D7E;">Phantom</span><span style="color:#55CAFA;">Steve</span>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#000080;">contribs</span>]]\ 06:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC) <!--*--> |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
||
Line 145: | Line 170: | ||
:{{DRV links|OneSavings|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 26#OneSavings|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|OneSavings|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 26#OneSavings|article=}} |
||
I believe that this article should not have been deleted. It was originally deleted for being an advertisement or promotion, but I have no connexion with the company concerned. When I raised the issue with the editor who deleted the page, he said that he did not believe that it would merit inclusion until the deal was completed, and that I should take the case to this page. As the deal has recently been approved, and the new entity, although inheriting the business of the Kent Reliance Building Society, is a separate company, which has said that it hopes to incorporate other societies in the future, and the deal, which has been covered by major British newspapers, is about to be finalised, I believe that the article should not have been deleted. [[User:Buybooks Marius|Buybooks Marius]] ([[User talk:Buybooks Marius|talk]]) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
I believe that this article should not have been deleted. It was originally deleted for being an advertisement or promotion, but I have no connexion with the company concerned. When I raised the issue with the editor who deleted the page, he said that he did not believe that it would merit inclusion until the deal was completed, and that I should take the case to this page. As the deal has recently been approved, and the new entity, although inheriting the business of the Kent Reliance Building Society, is a separate company, which has said that it hopes to incorporate other societies in the future, and the deal, which has been covered by major British newspapers, is about to be finalised, I believe that the article should not have been deleted. [[User:Buybooks Marius|Buybooks Marius]] ([[User talk:Buybooks Marius|talk]]) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment from deleting admin''' As the deal has not been finalised, I do not feel that the company at the moment meets the criteria for inclusion, other than as a mention on the [[Kent Reliance Building Society]] (KRBS). Once KRBS has been changed to OneSavings, then that article could be renamed and more information added about OneSavings. -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|< |
*'''Comment from deleting admin''' As the deal has not been finalised, I do not feel that the company at the moment meets the criteria for inclusion, other than as a mention on the [[Kent Reliance Building Society]] (KRBS). Once KRBS has been changed to OneSavings, then that article could be renamed and more information added about OneSavings. -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#307D7E;">Phantom</span><span style="color:#55CAFA;">Steve</span>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#000080;">contribs</span>]]\ 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:There's no doubt merit in that view, but that's not the reason given for deletion nor is it a reason for speedy deletion. I'm not pretending to be pure or anything - I almost always find myself expanding the boundaries of G11 during a hard session of CSD deletions. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
*:There's no doubt merit in that view, but that's not the reason given for deletion nor is it a reason for speedy deletion. I'm not pretending to be pure or anything - I almost always find myself expanding the boundaries of G11 during a hard session of CSD deletions. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and restore'''. I don't see the G11 in this. The article is just a bland narrative of facts. There appears to be potential here: a Financial Times article[http://www.ftadviser.com/FinancialAdviser/Mortgages/Lenders/News/article/20101125/0c10b1b6-f621-11df-a28b-00144f2af8e8/Kent-Reliance-to-transfer-funds-to-OneSavings.jsp] and the Telegraph.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8147814/Kent-Reliance-narrowly-wins-vote-on-JC-Flowers-tie-up.html]. It might be more appropriate to merge the content into [[Kent Reliance Building Society]] but that's something that requires discussion as it involves some complexities. The long and the short of it is - unless I'm missing some implicitly promotional material - that I don't think G11 or any other speedy deletion criteria applied (eg A7) so deletion should go through a discussion. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 02:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and restore'''. I don't see the G11 in this. The article is just a bland narrative of facts. There appears to be potential here: a Financial Times article[http://www.ftadviser.com/FinancialAdviser/Mortgages/Lenders/News/article/20101125/0c10b1b6-f621-11df-a28b-00144f2af8e8/Kent-Reliance-to-transfer-funds-to-OneSavings.jsp] and the Telegraph.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8147814/Kent-Reliance-narrowly-wins-vote-on-JC-Flowers-tie-up.html]. It might be more appropriate to merge the content into [[Kent Reliance Building Society]] but that's something that requires discussion as it involves some complexities. The long and the short of it is - unless I'm missing some implicitly promotional material - that I don't think G11 or any other speedy deletion criteria applied (eg A7) so deletion should go through a discussion. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 02:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment from deleting admin after restoration''' Having had a break from Wikipedia for a few hours, I decided to look again at the article. {{u|Buybooks Marius}} and {{u|Mkativerata}} are both correct - this should not have been speedily deleted. I feel that at the moment, it might be more appropriate to merge it with KRBS, but that is indeed a whole different discussion, which I will leave for others! I have restored the article, and offer my apologies to {{u|Buybooks Marius}}. As Mkativerata implies above, I had dealt with a lot of CSD deletions to clear the backlog, and made a mistake on this one! -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|< |
*'''Comment from deleting admin after restoration''' Having had a break from Wikipedia for a few hours, I decided to look again at the article. {{u|Buybooks Marius}} and {{u|Mkativerata}} are both correct - this should not have been speedily deleted. I feel that at the moment, it might be more appropriate to merge it with KRBS, but that is indeed a whole different discussion, which I will leave for others! I have restored the article, and offer my apologies to {{u|Buybooks Marius}}. As Mkativerata implies above, I had dealt with a lot of CSD deletions to clear the backlog, and made a mistake on this one! -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#307D7E;">Phantom</span><span style="color:#55CAFA;">Steve</span>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#000080;">contribs</span>]]\ 06:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
||
|} |
|} |
||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
====[[:ItsLassieTime deletions]] (closed)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
||
Line 345: | Line 369: | ||
*'''Note''' - History of [[The Sly Old Cat]] has been undeleted since the recreation was from a cache, in order to satisfy the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA and GFDL. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ''<sup>'''('''[[User talk:MLauba|Talk]]''')'''</sup>'' 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Note''' - History of [[The Sly Old Cat]] has been undeleted since the recreation was from a cache, in order to satisfy the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA and GFDL. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ''<sup>'''('''[[User talk:MLauba|Talk]]''')'''</sup>'' 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse'''. There's a particularly disturbing side to the notion of banning an editor but then keeping their edits because we deem they come in handy. Deletion was well within the admin's discretion. Further, policy allows for summary deletion of content contributed by known repeat offenders in violation of [[WP:C]], and every contribution made by them could absolutely be subjected to indiscriminate deletion on these grounds alone. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ''<sup>'''('''[[User talk:MLauba|Talk]]''')'''</sup>'' 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse'''. There's a particularly disturbing side to the notion of banning an editor but then keeping their edits because we deem they come in handy. Deletion was well within the admin's discretion. Further, policy allows for summary deletion of content contributed by known repeat offenders in violation of [[WP:C]], and every contribution made by them could absolutely be subjected to indiscriminate deletion on these grounds alone. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ''<sup>'''('''[[User talk:MLauba|Talk]]''')'''</sup>'' 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*What's the basis of this "belligerent opposition" MuZemike mentions, please? This is hard to analyse without knowing the specific grounds on which someone is (apparently) complaining.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
*What's the basis of this "belligerent opposition" MuZemike mentions, please? This is hard to analyse without knowing the specific grounds on which someone is (apparently) complaining.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
**There is a topic at [[User talk:MuZemike#Why was the sly old cat deleted.3F|User talk:MuZemike]] from the user who restored [[The Sly Old Cat]]. I am not sure this is what MuZemike referred to as "belligerent" though. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 18:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
**There is a topic at [[User talk:MuZemike#Why was the sly old cat deleted.3F|User talk:MuZemike]] from the user who restored [[The Sly Old Cat]]. I am not sure this is what MuZemike referred to as "belligerent" though. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 18:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
***If that's everything, then let's '''snow endorse''' MuZemike's actions and close the DRV now. There's no credible or even tenable argument that MuZemike's actions were wrong.—[[User:S Marshall|< |
***If that's everything, then let's '''snow endorse''' MuZemike's actions and close the DRV now. There's no credible or even tenable argument that MuZemike's actions were wrong.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 20:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse'''. This user has proven again and again that they and their contributions are more time than they're worth and a net negative to the project. In addition there is little value in restoring their articles anyway, as they are littered with copyvios, so in most cases it's more work to carefully sift through them than to just recreate them from scratch. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse'''. This user has proven again and again that they and their contributions are more time than they're worth and a net negative to the project. In addition there is little value in restoring their articles anyway, as they are littered with copyvios, so in most cases it's more work to carefully sift through them than to just recreate them from scratch. [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse'''. Good use of admin discretion, entirely supported by policy. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse'''. Good use of admin discretion, entirely supported by policy. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:05, 9 February 2023
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Comment directed to jc37, but posted here because it's mildly relevant and for the sake of trying to keep things (mostly) in one place. jc37, in your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair you made two assertions. You then also copied those assertions to your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, and also you subsequently posted links to both those pages at several noticeboards. The first statement I have in mind is "the author makes it clear below that that is the intent" (the intent being "to disparage" "their subject or some other entity" and the author being myself). I did not make any comment in the MfD that can be interpreted to mean that my intent when creating the page was to disparage an individual or entity. I therefore request that you withdraw this statement. As far as I can see, it is false and is presumably the result of a misunderstanding. (I also do not agree that the original page is intended to disparage an individual. As its author, I am the only person who can comment authoritatively on the intention. The page comments - through humour - on a viewpoint or set of viewpoints. Not on an individual. It is totally in the spirit of commenting on content, not on the contributor.) The second statement I have in mind is "The suggested intent to engage in substantial recreations". While it is indeed correct that Giano, unwisely in my view, threatened to repeatedly recreate a version of the page, I myself did not participate in such recreations nor did I indicate that I would do so. Your statement, in the context of closing an MfD in which you also make allegations about the intentions of the page author, might very easily be misunderstood to mean that I had suggested an intention on my part to recreate the page if deleted. I would therefore like you to clarify this. (To avoid confusion; I have no objections, then or now, to the page being salted if it was, or is, deleted.) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe that this article should not have been deleted. It was originally deleted for being an advertisement or promotion, but I have no connexion with the company concerned. When I raised the issue with the editor who deleted the page, he said that he did not believe that it would merit inclusion until the deal was completed, and that I should take the case to this page. As the deal has recently been approved, and the new entity, although inheriting the business of the Kent Reliance Building Society, is a separate company, which has said that it hopes to incorporate other societies in the future, and the deal, which has been covered by major British newspapers, is about to be finalised, I believe that the article should not have been deleted. Buybooks Marius (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |