Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 26

26 November 2010

User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair

User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Procedural.Several users have objected to the close at deleting admin's talk page. See reasoning below. -Atmoz (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And those users all know where this page is. Stop with the "procedural" nominations - if you yourself think it should be overturned, nominate it. Otherwise all you are doing is rubbernecking. A talk page discussion may have resolved this, and there is no "procedure" that means it has to be nominated by you or anyone else. This isn't helpful.--Scott Mac 00:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from closer - Please read the talk page discussion at user talk:jc37#Closure, before commenting here. Thank you. - jc37 04:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  Also, note that this page is merely a copy of User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. - jc37 07:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Undelete: Overhwelming consensus was to keep, if not speedy keep.  Giacomo  23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. No consensus for deletion is present in the MfD, indeed rather the reverse. And the rationales given for deleting in the face of a keep consensus are not convincing. The material is attributed sufficiently for license purposes and is not an attack page in the G10 sense. For the record I don't like it and would rather Giano slap a G7 notice at the top, but that is not a rationale to delete given the lack of consensus to do so. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn, restore and ignore. the page is in my opinion both useless and drama-inducing. However, you don't fight Giano's conspiracy theories by conspiring to silence them. Hiding things in dark corners simply leads to more drama. Best to shine a light and demonstrate that there are no monsters under the bed (see also WP:TINC) Those genuinely wishing to reduce drama ought to have ignored this page. Sending it to MFD simply added to the drama and the impression of a desire to silence the critics, closing that MFD against consensus and with a rationale that looked like a vote is more of the same. Now, undelete this and move on. Poor close.--Scott Mac 00:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Was the deleted page not a duplicate of User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair? If so, why can't that page be used and linked to instead of a copy? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think that those commenting above are aware it's merely a copy. I added a notice at the top to read my talk page in the interest of clarity. I hope it helps. - jc37 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)- jc37 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  I at least was aware that it was a copy, though not that the original had been restored. However, looking at the log I see that the restoration is specifically for a limited period. No speedy criterion that would justify ignoring the consensus of the MfD applies and so my Overturn recommendation stands. Of course, if the original is kept then the copy can simply redirect (or even transclude) it but if the original is to be deleted now or in the future, then I don't see any pressing reason to prevent Giano from keeping a copy. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, for two reasons:

  The page was a duplicate of a talk page of a page which was deleted at MfD. It is, therefore, a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" and falls under CSD G4. It simply does not make sense to delete the original and keep the copy.

  As for the consensus of the discussion ... well, there was a numerical majority in favor of keeping the page (5.5 to 3), but consensus is not just a vote-count. To be honest, I think that a good case for keeping was not made. Except for the comment by SmokeyJoe, who suggested keeping or redirecting (technically, neither one is necessary for a duplicate page), the rest of the "keep" comments were: sarcasm(?) by GiacomoReturned, an assertion of harmlessness by GoodDay, and three comments (by Jenks24, Scott MacDonald, and Collect) that seemed to be motivated more by a fear of drama and disruption in response to deletion than any desire to actually retain the page.

  -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn I don't see a consensus here, particularly in light of the arguments of Jenks24, Scott MacDonald, and Collect. As for G10, there is a difference between an attack page and political shit-stirring, the latter being regrettable but not deletable.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus even here to overturn, what are you so afraid of?  Giacomo  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 the one which this page was a copy of? Why is 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. --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.

  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.—S Marshall T/C 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. - jc37 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.  Giacomo  20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  Wait a minute. What?

  "The page was created becase I suspected the original would be deleted..." - how is that not an intent to game the system? And following up on that, doesn't that become a WP:POINT situation, confirmed by everything that has thus followed?...

  As for "...spare[ing] two Arbs' blushes" - Shrugs, not my intent, and honestly, you would have to work VERY hard twisting fact in order to even TRY to suggest that I am anything but an advocate for transparency. See my current concerns at this year's arb election, for just one recent example.

  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. - jc37 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.

  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.

  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.

  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.—S Marshall T/C 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 : ) - jc37 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!  Giacomo  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.

  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.

  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.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  That was actually a nice summary of DRV (in my opinion at least).

  Thank you for clarifying.

  Let me ask this...

  My assessment as this being G10, is the fact that this is rather clearly intended to be "disparaging". (Based upon the word disparage specifically being used under G10 and CSD.)

  So since you say there is no policy reason for the deletion, is your position a.) that the pages in question were not intended to be disparaging (or for that matter, you do not see the pages themselves as disparaging). And therefore you feel that G10 didn't apply for that reason. Or b.) Is your position that you feel that "disparage" should not be part of the G10 criteria, and should instead only use the term "attack". And is it the possible semantic difference between "disparage" and "attack" which may be causing a confusion here? (and c.) something else, could be possible too, of course : ) - jc37 00:10, 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.--Scott Mac 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  I think you'd be hard pressed to call that a civil debate on issues... - jc37 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.

  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.

  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.

  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.—S Marshall T/C 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.

  So most of your comments in this latest post (I believe) aren't directly relevant.

  But let's pretend that what you were suggesting was the case. Specifically: "In other words, there's an extent to which deleting the page makes Giano look as if he's in the right" - I simply shouldn't care. And in my opinion, neither should you or anyone. At least as far as whether a speedy criteria applies or not. How many pages are speedied? And if the person who created the page were to cry out that:"this is a conspiracy against me and mine" (Or here's a "fun" example from other recent events: "This is an attempt to white wash opposition to (or support of) Climate Change"). Do you honestly suggest that such pages which would normally meet a speedy criteria should be retained/restored regardless, based upon that? I really don't believe that you would suggest that under such circumstances. So why should this be any different?

  I reiterate: fear of on-wiki drama should not be a factor in deciding.

  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? - jc37 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.—S Marshall T/C 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn no consensus to delete at MfD. no policy-based reason to delete. -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. Hobit (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime deletions

ItsLassieTime deletions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requesting review of one's own deletions here as there seem to be some (belligerent) opposition to them, as one went as far to recreate himself. On 17 November 2010, I deleted about 120 files and 39 articles that were created by Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs), who was blocked as a sock puppet of banned user ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs). Persuant to the banning policy and the speedy deletion policy, I deleted the following files and articles:

Also see the following previous discussions pertaining articles created by socks of ItsLassieTime:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LaVidaLoca/Archive
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations part 2
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 6#Uploads by Susanne2009NYC

Keep in mind, even if the articles are restored, they would still be subject to scrutiny under creator copyright investigations as this user was discovered to have had a long history of plagiarism; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. Moreover, if these are to be restored, I will be proposing an unblock and unban of ItsLassieTime, as the ban and blocks would be virtually worthless. –MuZemike 03:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Banned users are banned for persistent violations of community norms. The community's decision is "this person cannot be trusted to edit on this project". G5 is discretionary - an administrator can of course decide not to delete an article even if it was created by a banned user and the community can overturn a valid G5 here. But we should be very wary about interfering with an administrator's discretion to delete under G5. Especially when the reason for the ban goes to content policy violations (as opposed to, say, incivility). If a G5 is refused or overturned, the administrator who does so must take personal responsibility for ensuring that the article or file is policy compliant. I can see a lot of argument at MuZemike's talk page but what I don't see is anyone willing to put their hand up to vouch for the content they argue should be restored.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. Banned means banned, period. T. Canens (talk) 10:21, 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. MLauba ^(Talk) 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. MLauba ^(Talk) 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.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a topic at 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. 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.—S Marshall T/C 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. Siawase (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. Good use of admin discretion, entirely supported by policy. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse and snow close. I'm not a real fan of the policy used (I hate to see good material get deleted) but A) it is policy and B) the user in question has a history of copyright problems. It's got to go. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Question-Does Peter Rabbit's Painting Book which was(or maybe not) a GA suffer from copyvio. Several of the deleted articles also went through DYK...is it possible that they may not have copyvio? Just to note, these deletions have created several red links in {{Beatrix Potter}}.Smallman12q (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Is it O.K. if I (or any other "safe" user) can go ahead and re-create some of those from scratch? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course. In fact it would be wonderful! Hobit (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Can someone please check the edit history of Peter Rabbit's Painting Book? Was the banned editor the only/main editor? Hobit (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)