Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 3

User:Surturz/AdminWatch – Deleting admin agrees to undeletion and move to next discussion at MFD – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a non-admin, I should be allowed to keep lists of admin actions that I think are questionable. The only tool that non-admins have to check admin behaviour is WP:CONSENSUS. Without being able to keep such lists on-wiki, it is near impossible to build such consensus. There is plenty of evidence that a large number of non-admins think that admins should be more accountable, for example perennial proposals Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Reconfirm_administrators and Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#It_should_be_easier_to_remove_adminship. As for the technical grounds for this DRV, I think that User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads did not have authority to delete under G10, as it did not "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass". It did not disparage, as it was polite as I could make it. It did not threaten, merely bore witness. It did not intimidate - there was no demands made of the admins listed. It did not harass - I did not spam links to the page, or direct anyone to the page. --Surturz (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: After a bit of research, I now also think the page is also exempt from deletion as per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.". You cannot criticise an admin action without naming the admin and/or linking the action. --Surturz (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this page has been deleted twice; once by me when it looked like this, and once by Elen when it looked like this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:User pages very clearly states "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." (emphasis mine). It does not appear as though you are preparing this information for use in an iminent RFCU. You can easily keep this material locally on your computer. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G10 and G4 because the deletion process was not correctly followed. G10 is for "libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." This was not material intended purely to harass or intimidate, and the fact that it may have had that effect does not justify a speedy deletion. That would be for the community to decide, it's not a matter for one or two people to decide on their own personal judgment. G4 is for "a page deleted via a deletion discussion", which this was not. The two deleting admins clearly overstepped their authority and a clue-level adjustment is appropriate here. Of course, as always when DRV overturns a speedy, there should be no prejudice to a subsequent deletion discussion. If there's an actual consensus to delete this material then it certainly should be deleted. But not until.—S Marshall T/C 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion You may keep such a list privately, on your own computer, where it isn't in violation of Wikipedia policies. Your singular opinion that some admin action is "questionable" is not, of itself, justification for this list. If you are woried about an admin action, get community input via WP:ANI on that singular action or on that specific administrator. However, indefinitely maintaining a "shit list" of the perceived faults of others has long been disallowed at Wikipedia. WP:UP#POLEMIC has been enshrined as a principle for a long time; the fact that I am an admin myself (which I'm sure will be used by the OP to indicate that I am a second-class citizen at Wikipedia and that my opinion shouldn't count here) has no bearing on the fact that that principle exists and has long had wide community support. If you want to get WP:UP#POLEMIC changed to allow you to create and maintain this list, please do so with a community-wide discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages. However, as long as WP:UP#POLEMIC stands, this is a clearcut violation thereof, and needed to go. --Jayron32 14:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuck it. Overturn. Lets bring this to MFD just to prove to all the "admins sux" crowd that this is going to get deleted anyways. I still think it should be deleted, but shutting some people up seems like a reasonable goal, and if a WP:SNOW MFD is what some people demand, then give it to them. --Jayron32 18:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which CSD do you think applied, Jayron32?—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one. If you can clearly explain how encyclopedia articles become higher quality because this list is being maintained in the userspace, I will instantly change my vote and request an overturning of the deletion. Your note about the fact that a deletion discussion did not occur in this case has been noted, and I think it is a good position for you to take. I support your right to hold the opinion that one was needed, however though I have given your arguement much thought I do not think it, of itself, outweighs my prior feelings on the issue. I am not dismissing your opinions as invalid, S Marshall, I value them and considered them. I don't think that it is enough to yet convince me that the deletion should be overturned for merely bureaucratic reasons, per WP:BURO. But if you can convince me that the list the user was maintaining has at least some potential in making the encyclopedia better written, more accurate, or in some way a better product for the end user, I will change my vote. Again, I value your opinion in this matter, I just still hold a different one. --Jayron32 14:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are good reasons why DRV has always taken a dim view of "IAR speedies". Our job is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. And I'm not trying to convince you; I'm trying to convince your audience. :)—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing about this page that required immediate speedy deletion without the courtesy of discussing the matter with the editor involved. Lists like that should be reserved for direct dispute resolution preparation, however there was no attack language, merely disagreement with admin actions. The heavy handed over the top reaction to this page should not be endorsed. As a practical matter unless I could be convinced that there was actual DR in the future I'd probably support deletion at an MFD. It would be advisable for Surturz to maintain this type of list offline. That does not diminish my disapproval of the process used here.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. First of all, S Marshall's analysis is sound. Second, it simply looks bad for a page which supposedly documents bad admin behavior to be summarily suppressed by admins absent seriously abusive content. A laundry list of admin decisions a user disagrees with may not be terribly helpful in many eyes, but it's less likely to damage the project than actions suggesting that criticism of admins is being suppressed. Third, and most important, the page did not fall into the category of indefinitely maintained lists of grievances. It was deleted less than eighteen hours after being created, according to the available article history. I don't know what Surturz would have done with this page in the long run, but a user who's been editing for five years with a clean block log deserves more of an assumption of good faith than appears to have been afforded here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given Surturz's foolish comments today, I suspect that it's going to be much more difficult for editors to assume good faith here than it was when I originally posted this yesterday. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time (first two times) I've ever been disciplined by an admin, actually. How newbies navigate through the morass of policy I have no idea. I had trouble filling in the template thing for the DRV :-)--Surturz (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Surturz. I wouldn't like you to feel you had been "disciplined" (makes me feel like Madam Whiplash. If I delete a page, it's because the page needs deleting - if I need to take action against a user, that's what the block button is for. I have no problems if your intention is to examine admin powers and how these can be used in a way that causes problems - although do remember that admins are both human and volunteers. The problem is with your presentation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your view is that the problem's just with his presentation, then wouldn't you agree that you had alternatives to pushing the "delete" button? Why didn't you use them, and what justified your decision to step outside the very specific criteria the community has given you for pushing the "delete" button on your own authority?—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight, yes. I re-deleted it because it's seldom a good idea to re-create deleted content, which is what the user had done. It's usually preferable to go through a deletion review. Given the subsequent conversation, I'm not sure why Surturz would want the page anyway, as he seems to have agreed that Wikipedia does have ways to achieve the outcome he's after, that won't cause this sort of trouble, but I would support putting it back if he's going to refactor it. Perhaps more conversation at the outset would have achieved a better result and less dramah. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - It's not anything resembling a set of RFC's, it's merely a laundry list of complaints with no purpose other than firing shots at other users. In short, it's an attack page, and is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to MFD - Changing my opinion (and now taking this page off my watch list) for reasoning similar to Jayron's. If the creator thinks he's been challenged here, he's got a chance to get seriously blistered from a broader set of eyes. The subject of "enemies lists" is rather sensitive to me, having been on a few. But note well: Every user I know who's had an "enemies list" is no longer with us. Creation of such a list is a step on the path to banishment. We'll soon see how badly the creator wants to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse; this is a "these admin are bad" list, and those have no reason for being on-wiki outside of dispute resolution. If the intent is to document instances of problems for some future RfC, this can be achieved just as easily by storing this on the editor's own computer rather than to make a "wall of shame" on-wiki. — Coren ^(talk) 15:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've seen several people claim this page was an attack page, but other than saying "it is an attack page", could you provide a quote or basis for this assertion? I've looked at the page history and from what I can tell, the last version of the page doesn't sound like an attack at all. Before ruling against Surturz, please actually provide a rationale for how this page constitutes an attack. Primarily this should include arguments that show how the content on this page can "disparage or threaten" a specific admin (per WP:ATTACK). -- Avanu (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - There is a clear difference between an actual attack page, and a page created to help someone in maintaining accountability for those in power. Lèse majesté is a crime that hopefully we won't see arrive at Wikipedia. Between the extra leeway that we grant users in their own userspace, and the fact that merely recording the acts of those in power that a person finds questionable, this seems like something that would exempted from the WP:ATTACK page, or at least given a wide berth. And in this specific case, I see nothing rising to the level of an actual attack aka to "disparage or threaten". Is there an admin that feels this is a threat? Or do they feel disparaged? If so, that might be something to discuss personally with Surturz, but as far as I can see, this page is unbelievably mild, and mainly consists of a few diffs. -- Avanu (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The "holding admins to account" defence is bogus here. In Wikipedia the point of outlining a complaint or a dispute is to resolve it. Thus disputes should be on talk pages where they can be resolved through discussion, or taken to noticeboards or to one of the multiple dispute resolution mechanisms. Simply recording grievances in userspace, with no attempt to discuss or take matters forward is not holding anyone to account or resolving any dispute, it it simply cowards flinging faeces about - and you don't get to do that on these servers. If you've got a grievance that you want the community to consider, bring it on. But the alternative to putting up is shutting up.--Scott Mac 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the only two options are advance or retreat? What about simply letting things go and see how things work out? Essentially this editor chose to stand pat and see rather than pushing something that they didn't see as being a big enough deal. This idea that we must confront a person on every small offense or shut up and forget it is a bit unrealistic. Since it was only done in userspace, there is no flinging feces about, just a personal commentary. -- Avanu (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes and complains must ALWAYS either move towards resolution or be forgotten. The third option you are arguing for is one of keeping scores, remembering grievances, and nursing complaints, or worse attempting to sully someone's name, with no intention to resolve the issues. In any analysis, the third option is unproductive and serves only to cause harm. It is unacceptable.--Scott Mac 16:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely and unequivocally agree with Scott Mac here. And this comes from someone who just participated in an admin complaint that went nowhere on ANI. You either have to move forward and talk out the issue, or drop it. If you decide it's important enough to pursue, then you must take responsibility for the community at large by bringing that behavior to the attention of everyone. Even if a particular discussion doesn't uphold your particular viewpoint, a lot of people are made aware of the offending behavior - a behavior that may be perfectly reasonable in isolation, but is a problem if done habitually. By lodging your complaint, you establish a record of the conflict, and most importantly, you and the offending admin each get to understand the community perspective on the conflict. Keeping your conflict festering on a user page does NONE of those things, and deprives the community of the opportunity to develop understanding, and yourself the opportunity to grow. I completely and absolutely Support the deletion of all attack pages, laundry lists, and score keeping user pages as fundamentally poisonous to the community. Van Isaac_WS 22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to WP:MFD I don't view this material as an appropriate use of userspace. There is long-standing consensus that keeping laundry lists of grievances in userspace is not allowed unless the material is being prepared for a request for comment, arbitration case or other dispute resolution (which isn't happening here). The fact that we allow people to challenge admin actions doesn't mean that material which challenges an admin action cannot be removed. However these issues are best discussed in a deletion discussion. The page wasn't intended to "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass" the people listed in it (though I suppose you could argue its existence has that effect), so it doesn't qualify for G10. We do have a deletion policy and administrators are expected to stick to it apart from special circumstances. Hut 8.5 16:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain deleted. I agree that the use of G10 was incorrect, and MFD should have been the correct forum for deletion. However, its deletion in that forum is, IMO, certain per WP:UP#POLEMIC, etc, as raised above. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, undeletion purely for the purpose of sending it round the block again is a pointless exercise. Happy‑melon 16:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim WP:SNOW on this case, even if you think the page faces a very uphill battle. See the Jamaican Bobsled team clause. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POLEMIC applies in situations where the parties have equal power. People with admin rights are a special case, and speech against admin actions MUST be considered protected and valid speech and outside the purview of both POLEMIC and ATTACK. Admins acting as editors, of course, the AGF and ATTACK policies should apply, but Admins acting as Admins is a different case entirely. Having the ability to speak against percieved abuses of power; this is the essence of retaining the ability to function as a free society. Again, WP:POLEMIC and WP:ATTACK shouldn't apply to those actions taken in an administrative capacity. The mop shouldn't make a person immune to criticism, especially private criticism as we see in this case. -- Avanu (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are still allowed to seek redresses for misconduct by admins. No one is saying that people cannot bring up bona fide complaints about admin misconduct, or that admins are "immune to criticism" as you claim. Saying that over and over again doesn't make it true, no matter how often you assert it. No one is trying to silence criticism about admins. As I have told you over and over and over again, and which you keep ignoring me when I say it, admins should be criticised. But this method is not a valid way to do that. Instead of keeping this out of the public scrutiny, bond fide and genuine accusations of misconduct should be placed open to review and comment by the community. This page does not do that. Yes, the admin corps and culture at Wikipedia needs a major overhaul. Yes, admins who abuse their tools must be held accountable in a more systematic manner than is being done. Yes, admins should be held to a higher standard of behavior. This page does none of that. If you Avenu really want to change the admin culture at Wikipedia, (which is a noble cause, and one you should be commended for) you should really focus your effort in a way which is actually likely to work, rather than trying to "save" this page which, even if this DRV get's overturned, will just be deleted in 7 days via MFD. Seriously, see the forest for the trees man: I want to see your voice be heard on this issue, and you Avenu have important things to say, but you are wasting the important things you have to say by fighting the wrong battles. Saving this page isn't going to fix the problems with the admin corps. --Jayron32 18:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the user were using that page to construct a proper set of RFC's, that would be allowed. But that's not what it's for. It's just a "protest sign", based on a false premise as you've indicated before... i.e. it's il garbagio and needs to be disposed of as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know where is a great place to make this sort of argument? WP:MFD. It is common to tell parties appealing the close of an XFD that DRV is not just a rehash of the XFD. Similarly, it is not a place to conduct the XFD that never happened because there was an out-of-process speedy. --RL0919 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It's a blatant rules violation. No consensus needed. No compromise. IT MUST GO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to follow the rules, it should have gone to MFD to begin with, because WP:UP#POLEMIC is not a speedy deletion criterion. And Wikipedia:Consensus was a policy the last time I checked. "No consensus needed. No compromise." is about as far from Wikipedia's "rules" as you can get. --RL0919 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey what happened to that village pump idea and restore vote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.54.246 (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - This clearly does not meet the threshold for G10. WP:MFD is the proper place to discuss potential deletion of this page. Administrators need to have think enough skins to follow the process here and not just delete because they feel that some of their ranks are being criticized. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The sad fact is that administrators hold life appointments, sort of like Supreme Court justices but with less accountability. The subpage in question is not an attack page, but is a valid use of user space for a commendable purpose. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at WP:MFD. In the MFD, people are welcome to argue that this page violates the guideline at WP:UP#POLEMIC, and Surturz can argue back about plans for using the material in dispute resolution, WP:ADMINACCT, whatever. However that turns out, it is still the case that WP:UP#POLEMIC is not a speedy deletion criterion. As to the speedy deletion criteria that were claimed, WP:CSD#G10 does not cover claims that a WP admin deleted a page without consensus. If it did, we would need to delete much of the history of DRV as "attacks". Similarly, WP:CSD#G4 is for recreations of material that was deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion. That obviously doesn't apply in this case, which is something that any admin, much less a sitting ArbCom member, ought to realize. We should be extra-cautious about deleting material that may be seen as prejudicial towards fellow admins, whereas these hasty, overzealous deletions justify a trip to the fish market for both of the deleting admins. If the motivation was to preserve reputations, it failed, because the Streisand effect has now made this obscure little user page much more prominent than a simple MFD would have. --RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I feel about the speedy, that may have been premature but until it was deleted and restored the page seemed focused on a single MFD from May, which the closing admin took to DRV themselves when the close was questioned. And one of the admins on there is listed just for nominating the page, which is not an administrative action anyway. So, not only is is clearly a "shit list" it is not a very well-informed or useful one. Deletion should this go to MFD is more or less assured so why go through the motions? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a case of an admin deleting some random page that was obviously junk but didn't quite match a CSD criterion, I would agree. But this is a page complaining about the behavior of other admins, and we should be more careful about observing process in such cases regardless of whether we think the content of those complaints is appropriate. If we jump on Surturz for putting these comments on a user page instead of in an RFC/U, or for complaining at AN/I instead of opening a DRV, but then approve of obviously out-of-process speedy deletions in the same matter, what does that say to other editors? --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Was 1) deleted out of process, such that a proper debate was not allowed to be held. I disagree that the MFD would hold this page to a "certain fate". Furthermore, the recording of admin actions to me, is one that should be allowed on userspace. Yes, I buy the accountability argument. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by an admin being watched I have never seen a speedy deletion for this kind of this end up without more drama then simply heading straight for MFD. I'd speedy close this and list at MFD. It seems the route to the least amount of drama. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Attack pages are not allowed, PERIOD. This is not negotiable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Show me an attack that was on that page.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first sentence laid out the user's (false) premise that "admins are not accountable". And rather than following process to try to make them accountable, he simply posts claims about admins' actions. And given the false premise he starts with, it's reasonable to assume that his claims are also false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not an attack on anyone, and whether the premise is false or not is a matter of opinion. I happen to feel it is true. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is NOT a matter of opinion; it IS FALSE, because admins DO get defrocked when they misbehave, PROVIDED THE PROPER CHANNELS ARE FOLLOWED, AND THAT USER'S APPROACH AIN'T IT. That user's page, starting with a false statement, whether it's from ignorance or willful lying, is enough to expose the fact that it's an "enemies list", which are absolutely forbidden. No compromise. No "consensus" needed. It has to go, pronto. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I said: Show me the attack on that page. I didn't say: Show me a lot of capslock. I didn't say: Make strongly-worded opinion statements with accusations of bad faith. What I said was: Show me the attack on that page.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I ALREADY TOLD YOU what the attack was. He initially smears all admins with an ignorant and/or lying statement, then proceeds to list specific admins and alleged problems which he has not bothered to go through the right procedures to address, instead simply posting them as an "enemies list". What part of THAT IS NOT ALLOWED do you not understand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see an attack.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I don't see an attack either. (redacted the rest)Pedro : Chat 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Pedro. Just to let you know I was fully competent - I hadn't taken drink, and I even hit the right button first time. I may have been wrong, but that's a different argument. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - The claims on the page (from this revision) are true, although the bit about "erroneously claiming consensus" is more opinion than anything else. The point here is that you aren't allowed to keep pages around to detail who your enemies are. If you're going to open an RFCU, I'm fine with creating a temporary page, but this was intended to be permanent. FWIW, attacks aren't necessarily explicit attacks; ATP defines them as "exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" and goes on to state that "keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this page the first time, so I'm a bit involved, but my comments on this are above with the same timestamp. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion valid per IAR. Content certainly not appropriate for userspace or any namespace on Wikipedia. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at MfD- Not a legitimate use of G10. I think there is a strong argument that this page is a mere shopping list of "bad acts", but it's not clear-cut. I also think it would be better for the community to decide that rather than an admin acting alone. Reyk _YO! 21:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at MfD. The G10 deletion was (redacted) a thing that occured.Pedro : Chat 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Pedro - (redacted comment as Pedro very reasonably redacted his one above)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at MfD Quite possibly the MfD will say delete - but - there are times when decorum calls for following the process. This out of process deletion has done more harm than that page would have done collecting dust for the next 100 years. P.S. I will not comment on said future MfD Agathoclea (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
spartaz is right: "go to mfd, & I would think the same if it I were included. IAR speedies can only be done if it is such an obvious situation that essentially every uninvolved person would agree,and if anyone thought that, they weren't seeing the community as it as, and they've now learned otherwise. It is not G10, which takes a lot more than this. As for the first part

"Admins, in general, are not accountable for their actions to non-admins. Admins are appointed for life, and are generally not disciplined with blocks and deletions in the same way non-admins are. For a non-admin to seek recourse for poor admin behaviour, they must first establish consensus. However, it is virtually impossible to establish this consensus without being accused of violating WP:AGF, WP:ATP, WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. I believe it is reasonable to subject admins to a higher level of scrutiny than non-admins. I think it helps the project to keep admins accountable for their actions. This page attempts to do that."

I agree with this , more or less, though I'd word it a little less generally, (e.g. long-established admins) and have said the similar, on and off wiki. Anyone who thinks that long established admins are as much accountable for their actions as non-admins, needs to look at AN/I a little more. I wouldn't have said "virtually impossible to establish consensus" for poor admin behavior to "very often impossible ..." As for the second part, I agree with the first criticism, the second is reasonably debatable--and was much debated--, the third similarly, the 4th also reasonably debatable. To say that one disagrees with some XfD or DelRev closures is something I've said from time to time, and so has almost everyone else who pays attention to those processes. It does even violate the provision in WP:?User, for it is in close relation to a single ongoing debate, and so is for current use. Having seen the history, I didn't look at this again thinking I'd actually support the page, but I would, except that I personally think its purpose was to annoy. Annoy, not harass, or anything stronger. But I think those bringing an mfd against it also had the same purpose. This is something where the best rule is live and let live. Every active admin has heard a lot nastier about themselves, and is none the worse for it. Elen was rather foolish to speedy it, for that action could reasonably be used to ask her to recuse from every arb com case involving improper use of deletion, on the grounds that she doesn't know the proper use of speedy herself. Any arb should have the sense not to personally take an admin action that would likely be open to good faith challenges. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at MfD given the subject matter is administration behaver, I don't think an administrator should make the call on this, there needs to be consensus to delete. Having said that (and without seeing the exact page content) and the reading above, I suspect it will be deleted at MfD. Mt king^(edits) 00:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Deleted with complete disregard to process. MFD exists for a reason. Buddy432 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now looking forward to it being at MFD, where the user can expect to take an even worse beating for his attack page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The attitude you have on this page's existence makes me question your motivations for being opposed. If it is just 'bad form' to have such a page, why be so incredibly and vocally opposed? After all, people do a lot worse than what we see from the diffs above. Such a strong reaction feels more like a thin-skinned admin reacting to being poked (akin to Contempt of cop or Lèse majesté). If, in fact, it is just a 'justified' reaction to what you see as uncivil, I would suggest you stop looking forward to 'the user taking an even worse beating', and that we stop trying to characterize a very mild page as an ATTACK page and simply point out exactly how it breaches policy and suggest how it could be fixed. The attitude I'm seeing is something that strongly argues for the existence of more such pages, not less, and more admin oversight, not less. -- Avanu (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Baseball Bugs is not an admin AFAIK. Reyk _YO! 05:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not an admin, just a wikipedia advocate. This kind of junk belongs on Wide Receiver, not here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, agree with people that this was deleted without concerning the content (or justification). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at MfD While these kind of 'shit lists' are not appropriate, IMO, this deletion was blatantly wrong. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse in principle, as a clearly inappropriate page, but overturn and list at MFD per proper procedure. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Send to MfD. While I feel rather strongly that such pages are not appropriate and should be removed, speedying them does more harm than good and they are better dealt with through MfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion This was clearly an attack page, so its speedy deletion was within the scope of CSD G10. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and MfD - I agree with the deletion, but also agree that technically it doesn't meet the criteria of G10. As far as I'm concerned, speedies are meant to be uncontroversial, so MfD it, I'm confident it will be deleted. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A token endorse at this point, given the above sentiment, but sending to MfD for the sake of process is kinda what WP:IAR is in place to alleviate. But some people like that sorta thing, so keep on truckin, Wiki-Byzantium. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone said earlier that failure to take to MFD tends to increase the drama. Why do I get the feeling that they ain't seen nothin' yet? ") ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's likely connected to your expressed wishes for further drama at the MFD. People who desire drama often find ways to fulfil their predictions.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those who object to its deletion are the ones who want the drama. They want to use the upcoming MFD as a lightning rod for admin-bashing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - But at least they have the sense not to post how they're rooting for the drama.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Unlike the item's own creator, whose separate section below reveals that he will fight tooth and nail to retain his attack page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I voted to overturn and I want to see this drama go away as quickly as possible. I just think following the established rules for article deletion is far more important than avoiding drama. Please WP:AGF. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You wish! In the section below, he warns all admins to stay away from the MFD. How much good faith is the item's creator entitled to? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I meant assume good faith for third parties like me who are voting to overturn. I agree that the conduct of the item's creator appears questionable. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't question your good faith, just your judgment. It's perfectly clear that he intends to maximize the drama, and everyone who votes to send this to MFD aids and abets that drama. Unless he's bluffing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The idea that we should bypass established rules and procedures because a user will throw a temper tantrum is ludicrous. I don't care if the MFD turns into the longest article on Wikipedia. We have to stick to the rules. This wouldn't even be an issue if the rules were followed in the first place. The administrator who improperly deleted the article gave Surturz a soapbox and now we have to live with it. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The deletion was proper. Attack pages are not allowed. The creator's continual bad-faith is plainly evident in his comments below. You don't have to live with it - you're choosing to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that WP:G10 was not met has been extensively covered by myself and many others. I see no convincing argument to the contrary. We don't get to ignore the rules because we want to or it is convenient for us. This mess is what happens when an administrator incorrectly applies the rules. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 20:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Deletion may turn out to be proper, but that's to be decided by an MfD. The fact that so many people feel the same way proves that deletion is not an uncontroversial slam-dunk and so G10 simply does not apply. Reyk _YO! 20:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You choose the drama, and unless the creator changes his mind, you'll be sure to get it. Have fun! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Asking for things to be done properly rather than by arbitrary fiat is choosing drama? There would be much less drama if the page had gone to MfD straight away like it should have. I'll probably be voting to delete the thing when it gets there. Reyk _YO! 21:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Attack pages are against the rules. Perhaps you're not aware of that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Continuing to claim that this was an attack page without providing any new evidence is not useful. Avanu pointed this out when the discussion first started and he has yet to receive an answer. The essence of the entire argument for WP:G10 is a bunch of people repeating "this is an attack page" over and over again without any specific examples. But by all means lets continue to turn this into even more of a circus than it already is. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If the list was anything other than admins, there would be no discussion, it would be gone. Users do not have any special privilege to maintain an enemies list just because it contains admins. You want the drama of the MFD, and you're going to get what you want. It should be fun to watch! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I know what the rules are. I also know that you declaring it to be an attack page doesn't make it one, and that this discussion proves there is enough doubt about whether it is an attack page or not to make a slam-dunk speedy deletion inappropriate. Surturz has made a half-way plausible point about WP:ADMINACCT, and a conciliatory drama-reducing gesture below, so I guess the only person gleefully rubbing their hands together at the prospect of teh dramaz is you. Reyk _YO! 03:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've seen many attack pages, so I know one when I see one. Typically the authors of those pages end up on the scrap heap. We'll see if this one turns out the same way. But it's you that's choosing the potential for drama. Don't blame me for what you choose to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - It is clear that G10 was incorrectly cited here, as I find no evidence of such on the deleted page and no one has stepped forward to point out evidence. I find any argument that we shouldn't overturn the incorrect deletion of an article unconvincing. Even if a correct renomination and subsequent deletion were certain, discussion of such in this forum is not established procedure. Deletion requests must be debated per the guidelines, not bashed out in a WP:DRV. I also find the arguments of S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz sound. This deletion was an egregious mistake by the admin who performed it and has given this page much more attention and controversy than it deserves. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 17:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trouts all round. Creating the page was and is unnecessary and ultra vires, deleting the page is the right outcome, doing so in this way was unnecessary and confrontational in the circumstances. By all means let's have further drama at an MfD if everyone has nothing better to do, but in my view the outcome would ideally look something like:

(a) the deleting admin apologising to the author of the page for not taking a more collegiate approach.

(b) the author of the page graciously accepting the apology and consenting to the deletion.

(Exits stage left, holding breath.) Ben Mac Dui

I'm not trying to trick anyone here, so I'd like to get this on the record. At the moment it looks as if the likely outcome is that the speedy will be overturned, and then a proper MFD will be raised to delete the page. I strongly recommend that no admin vote in favour of deletion in that MFD. To do so would be to undermine their own position, and create a far more effective "shit list" than the page under discussion. As per WP:ADMINACCT, editors are allowed to criticise admin actions, and you can believe that I and other non-admin editors will point to the MFD and say "every admin that voted to delete AdminWatch is actively trying to silence dissent from non-admins". --Surturz (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin, may I say that this is ridiculous? Admins are neither better nor worse than any other editor, and their opinion is as valid as anybody else's in any discussion. This threat should be retracted immediately. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is just bizarre. Surturz, the fact that editors don't approve of the speedy deletion of your page does not necessarily mean they agree with you. I've argued hard that your page belongs at MFD, but when it gets there, I'll be voting "delete".—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So admins are no longer part of the community, then? At least I thought I still was; or at least I still work on articles in the mainspace. –MuZemike 18:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly ridiculous. I'm not an admin, but that just smells like you're being disruptive to prove a point. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you've been given so much time by the community over this. (Note I agree with the deletion but also agree it was out of process and !voted to list at MFD.) This has all the hallmarks of a page used to stalk/hound admins, and there's no way you can say "admins shouldn't vote delete" on such an MFD. That is purely disruptive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, WP is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY why prolong the inevitable especially when the complainer here wants to disenfranchise members of the community by threat. By the way, if listed, I intend to comment in favor of deletion Surturz's threats notwithstanding. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred outcome (and arbitrary section break)

Thanks Ben MacDui for a very constructive suggestion. My "fair warning" was not meant to intimidate, I was just trying to show that going straight to an MFD and everyone piling in shouting "delete!" wasn't going to help anyone. My preferred outcome is:

the speedy deletes by User:The ed17 and User:Elen of the Roads overturned
User:The ed17 and User:Elen of the Roads to apologise on my talkpage for the incorrect speedy deletions
being allowed to keep the page name, the lantern image and its caption
being allowed to link to admin decisions and (politely) give comments as to why I disagree with them.
for the links and comments to be allowed to exist indefinitely
that I be given a reasonable amount of time to "clean up" the page before an MFD is raised. I have thus far been denied that opportunity.
I undertake to re-sort the information based on incident, rather than username.
I will make best efforts to focus on the decisions themselves rather than particular admins
I will allow the supposed "shit list" revisions to be deleted under CSD U1
I would like further complaints about the page to be raised on the talkpage of AdminWatch first, before formal processes are invoked
if talkpage agreement cannot be reached, that admins edit/lock the page (as in article space) before Speedy delete/MFD/ANI etc

I make the further observation that an admin deleting a user page feels a bit like the cops coming into your home and taking the playstation. I know we don't "own" our userspace, but you don't have to own a house for it to be a home. I would recommend that admins ensure they have strong consensus before deleting user pages. Finally, I believe WP:IAR should never be invoked as a criteria for speedy deletion. To allow that is to allow the arbitrary use of the delete button. --Surturz (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been requested for my response, so here's my two penn'orth. I do not know whether your new page will be acceptable - the community would have to see it. It sounds less problematic, but I imagine the talkpage will swiftly descend into disgruntled editors sounding off about their particular admin, which would be a problem you would have to manage. I can see no way that you would get special dispensations for your page.

If the page is restored, the community has indicated that it will immediately list it for MFD, so that's the amount of time you would have to change it sufficiently to avoid deletion or take a copy offline.

I would note that the page wasn't speedied under IAR but under G10 - attack pages can exist in userspace as well as article space. If there is a disagreement, it is around whether it is an attack page. You have said that your intention is not to single out admins but identify problems caused by Wikipedia's approach to enforcement, in which case it would be fair to say that it was not intended as an attack page even though it unfortunately had all the surface hallmarks of one. The second deletion was G4, which was a mistake as this only applies to pages deleted after a deletion discussion. It should have been G10 again - as the text to G4 points out This criterion also excludes content ... which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). This is why it is a bad idea to respond to a speedy deletion by recreating the article.

I appreciate that this probably doesn't go as far as you want, but at the time, it did appear to fall into the G10 category, following previous discussions about what have come to be vulgarly known as shitlists. Had the conversation we have had occurred first, I would not have deleted the article, but the existence of the thing made one less predisposed to have the discussion about its creation. Most of these pages are created by multiply sanctioned editors with long running grievances, which rather colours one's opinion, making it harder to WP:AGF. I am certainly sorry that we did not avoid this drama by conversing, as a result of that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was solicited to comment here as well. I second the thoughts on conversing, but otherwise don't have much to add. A list of disagreements will almost certainly be seen as another attack page. I don't see why you need a list of poor admin actions, as that's what we have ANI and other noticeboards for. Finally, the page is going to be brought to MfD by someone here simply based on the consensus of this DRV; I don't know if your preferred outcome is viable on that point.

With regards to the note above... you might want to try a different explanation. When you say "I strongly recommend that no admin vote in favour of deletion in that MFD.", you quite obviously aren't "just trying to show that going straight to an MFD and everyone piling in shouting "delete!" wasn't going to help anyone." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you all (- and for the record I have undertaken no soliciting). I hope some of the above remarks go some way towards repairing any ill-feeling relating to the process even if and of themselves they do not resolve the issue. I for one am now better able to understand the motivations of those involved and as a result sympathise with them, even if I can't agree with everything that is said or requested. Ben Mac Dui 18:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong overturn Improper use of CSD on a page that does not meet the (narrow) criteria. I would personally say this should just be kept, there's enough support here, obviously. At the very least it should be overturn and list. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G10 and send to MfD. G10 applies only to pages that "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass" somebody. Reasoned criticism of admin actions, such as one might find on any noticeboard, is not disparagement (which a dictionary defines as "to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle"), nor is it threatening, intimidating or harrassing. The page therefore fails to meet the G10 criteria. It might still be deleted on other grounds, such as the prohibition against having certain material in userspace, but that's for MfD to decide. Sandstein 11:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know whether this will be overturned, and I don't have enough of an opinion of the merits to express a view. However, we don't make people apologize here. This isn't fourth grade. If Ed and Elen have something to apologize for—I have no idea whether they have—it's up to them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Couldn't care less ... sorry. — Ched : ? 18:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second offer

In the interests of trying to avoid an MFD which will only re-hash the arguments here, can I suggest the following:

the speedy deletes by User:The ed17 and User:Elen of the Roads are overturned, and the page delete log makes it clear that both speedies were overturned. (It is important to me, even if to noone else, that I keep my "clean record")
the page, as it exists now, is speedied under CSD U1 - user request. This is not an admission of guilt. I don't think I have done anything wrong, this is merely to avoid an unconstructive MFD
I recreate the page as described above. Interested admins can watch the page and give talk page comment and/or raise a subsequent MFD as they see fit (or even speedy it if they can find a CSD).

Sorry if I gave the impression I was demanding an apology. I would still like User:The ed17 and User:Elen of the Roads to apologise on my talk page as a matter of civility, but only if those apologies are freely given. It is up to them. --Surturz (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the consensus in this DRV is to overturn but bring to MfD, so it's going to go there no matter what you do. It won't rehash much from here because the arguments hinge on whether proper process was followed, which happens to be a rather resounding "no". I'm not going to apologize for speedying an attack page, even if it was out of process, as the consensus here also demonstrates that the page in its most recent form would be deleted at MfD. I'll apologize for not being willing to offer an apology, though. :-) That's meant seriously, not patronizingly. Kind regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to recreate the page, then what's the point of doing the first two? The page was created ON WIKI (in my opinion) to provoke controversy (or at least that was the result). You achieved your goal. You've had your 15 minutes of fame. Personally, I'm inclined to WP:DENY your request. Admins. are human. They are no better or worse than anyone else here. Everyone makes mistakes. I'm not sure what WP:POINT you're trying to make with this; but as I said above - I honestly don't care. I'm more than happy to delete the current version under CSD U1, but if I do, then I'm going to salt it as well. Your call. — Ched : ? 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "salt" means that I cannot re-use the page name. It sounds like everyone wants to make an example of me by bringing me to MFD. Who is trying to intimidate whom here? I'll reiterate that at no time have I been able to fix up the page. It got speedied, and then locked for DRV. Its talkpage is empty and I was not given any warning of the speedy, or even informed that "shit lists" are against policy. If it's an attack page it is the mildest attack page in WP history. As my home userpage says, my userspace is not really intended for other people to look at, and other editors are free to edit my pages to remove content they do not like. My offer of U1 is conditional that I can re-use the page name. I wish to avoid an MFD because it would be humiliating to me (I have a clean 5(?) year record so far), and I think the spectacle of a dozen or so admins voting to delete a page purporting to keep them accountable is a very bad look. On the technical side I think I have a plausible case that the policy WP:ADMINACCT trumps the guideline WP:UP#POLEMIC. --Surturz (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, this sounds like a good idea. An MfD just for the sake of the drama helps nobody (though some commenters above appear to relish the thought), but I don't think that it's avoidable at this point. Even if the page is deleted via U1 any similar or successor page is going to be nominated because of "taint" of its origin. This is not fair, but given the tenor of the commentary above I think it's inevitable. That said, a new page that does really address the concerns people have will probably be kept at MfD. But that's a question that will heavily depend on the exact nature of any new page. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to MFD. I agree that in this situation, IAR may be valid somewhat, and while I hate process for the sake of process, the larger issue is that if we let it slide for one, we open the floodgates for speedy deletion to be done when it doesn't fit the criteria. The page may be bad, but if it doesn't fit the speedy criteria, then it can't be speedied. I agree that pages such as this aren't appropriate. Per the username policy, userspace isn't the place to list your beefs about an editor, and this page isn't being used to gather evidence for a pending RFCU. There's little doubt (at least in my mind) that it would be deleted at MFD, but that's where it belongs. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn because the speedy deletions were not in accordance with the speedy deletion criteria. In this case abiding by the CSD criteria would not have prevented anyone from improving or maintaining WP so WP:IAR should not have been applied. Thincat (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close and MFD

Even though I tossed an endorse into the ring, consensus to take it to MfD is overwhelming. Can we wrap this up 4 days short and just get on with it? Tarc (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here. --Surturz (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support go for it. — Ched : ? 13:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, lets get round 2 on the road. If Surturz wants to avoid MFD (as he's said in one of his offers above), he can stick a deletion request on it or blank the page in the usual way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Ben Mac Dui 14:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg – Deletion endorsed. – Black Kite (t) (c) 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per discussion here, I would like to Overturn or Speedy relist because of concerns over the circumstances of the original nomination. I am the uploader, but I was never informed (which is the standard protocol listed at WP:FFD) by the nominator user:202.156.13.11, a suspected sockpuppet and currently blocked for edit warring and disruptive behaviour.

Problems with the original process.

The IP used by the nominator is part of a wide string of IPs that have been wikihounding me and could possibly be linked to the Singaporean government and/or People's Action Party: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011, as well as the edit war it attempted to conduct there. The nominator also appeared to making a bad-faith nom out of revenge, because the nomination date coincides with the same date government-copyrighted photos were removed and deleted from the article Vivian Balakrishnan for copyright problems. The licensing given for the photos on the Vivian Balakrishnan article was "own work", but the uploader would not explain how he or she gained the privileged perspectives or high resolutions used in the photos, use the OTRS system, or address any copyright issues beyond blanket reverts, violating the 3RR rule in the process; in the end the user used webmaster privileges to change licencing for the image on a politicians' website (before the incident, copyright on that website was "all rights reserved"), which seems to be strong evidence that "public relations management" was involved. On the same day of the dispute, the nominator listed this image that I uploaded for deletion.

Problems not addressed by the original discussion.

Now, on to the discussion. Ultimately, the image was deleted not because of the original grounds of the nominator, but because of the BLP concern of "recentism", but I was never allowed to respond to that discussion, having never been informed. The perspective was a very famous photo distributed for Tin Pei Ling and shaped the public impression of Tin Pei Ling, to the extent that a nonpolitical, television magazine effectively commented on the image. To the extent that the image was widely-seen and distributed, I believe it deserves to be commented upon in the article. I have temporarily undeleted the image in the meanwhile, so the community can judge its merit.

elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC) }}[reply]

Endorse deletion, while acknowledging the concerns about the bad-faith nomination and lack of notification. Being one of the delete voters in the original discussion, I can now state that I would have upheld that vote even in the knowledge of Elle's counterarguments presented above, so I think the outcome should be upheld. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome here is to restore there are various other issues which would need to be resolved. Making a collage of images in this way shouldn't be done. In the sense of NFCC requirement of minimal use it would be unlikely that we'd permit three images, we can't get around that by pasting the images together into one image, it is still three separate images. The licensing claim of it being distributed for the publicity use seems false/not evidenced - appearing in a magazine doesn't equal distributed to all manner of press for broad usage. In fact the text states one of the images was "leaked", so hardly something deliberately distributed for publicity. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, the magazine is merely the symptom of the fact that the image was already widely known, i.e. the magazine was parodying the pose, which was already well-known to the extent that it almost deserves to be covered on Wikipedia (see Read my lips, no new taxes). In the very least I can go back to the revision of two images, but the topic is that of the famous "pose" (which was widely circulated to support certain claims about Tin Pei Ling's attitude to life -- a quick google search will show this, since it was covered in a wide variety of press sources), and the pose was spoofed in a television magazine. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be missing the point, if you include the images they should be included as separate images, not mashed together. We then decide on each image in it's own right as to appropriateness taking into account the criteria. No one has published the image in that form. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That can be addressed in an FFD. I put them side by side to highlight their similarity. I could have uploaded them separately, but the Wikiformat makes it inconvenient to line up the images side by side. In any case, fair use does not forbid derivative works, especially when I've made separate fair use claims for each of the works. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Addressed this in my reply below, I'm amazed you can't see the problems introduced by making such a collage. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, I used "promotional" since it was the freely-seen cover to a magazine that would have been sold on the street and in the stores. The leaked photo is not the promotional image; the spoof is. The leaked photo is a "historic" photo. I argue the photo is sufficiently notable and historic in and of itself, to the extent that the government commented on it repeatedly over the course of two months, such that we can claim fair use. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes that's my point, you misunderstand what promotional means in the context of that tag. It doesn't mean merely has been used to promote something. Adverts printed in magazines are promotional, they aren't however released as part of a press pack and distributed widely... The idea within that tag is that an image is promotional something along the lines of - "I" send it out to lots of people and say, hey there's this image of my "product"/whatever It's my copyright but you can use it in your magazine/book/tv show etc. to show what my "product"/whatever is like, illustrate a review, etc. If we take your interpretation, it's the cover of a magazine used to attract people to want to buy it, then many many commercial images would suddenly fall under that banner, book covers, album covers, perhaps works of art hung in a gallery to promote the artist...
    That fact that you are claiming a different basis for inclusion of the "leaked" photo, demonstrates the problem of your self constructed collage. They should be included as individual images, with the appropriate claim made for the individual images. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made an individual fair use claim for each of the images. I merely put them in one image for formatting purposes only. I used that rationale to show why use in this case does not compete with 8 Days' market share and to strengthen the fair use claim (along with critical commentary). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes and making the individual claims in that way is problematic, I'm not sure how many times I can say that. How can a reuser understand this? Someone automatically scraping will likely look at the templates to decide on inclusion/exclusion of an image. We have discussions on inidividual images, there's often criticism of multiple articles listed in debates, this is forcing that. How does the closing admin read a debate where person 1 says keep the outer 2, remove the middle as it fails NFCC#x, whilst someone else gives a blanket keep rationale, and another a blanket delete, and another wants to keep the left hand 2, yet another delete the right hand 2 etc. As for formatting purposes? You can place the images next to each other on the page without having to do that, you might not understand how to do it (I'm sure there is a template somewhere) but that doesn't make it impossible. However this is a bit of a sideline, if the result here is endorse of the deletion, then it's moot for these images, if the result is to restore then they need to split out into separate images and each given it's own rationale. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think you realise what will happen if each of the images are transcluded separately. The textwrapping will be awful. The pictures aligning themselves will be unpredictable (and be dependent on the width of a user's window). To align them in a single image is trivial, and I believe this is valid, if the individual claims are valid. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As said, you not knowing how doesn't make it impossible. A quick google search comes back with Template:Multiple_image with doesn't have your problems. Nicely side step all the other problems, of course looking pretty is a far more important concern than anything else... Collages of differently "licensed" images is always a problem. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Endorse" deletion. La goutte de pluie is engaged in a political campaign against the PAP, a political party in Singapore. Her edit wars, and the uploading of an image which she does not have the copyright for a part of her campaign. She alleges bad faith, but a review of her own edits reveals her own bias. 220.255.1.162 (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this IP is part of a string of IPs mentioned in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our main job at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and in this case it clearly wasn't. Clearly. A tit-for-tat nomination by a sockpuppeteer using an IP address who failed to notify the original uploader and therefore denied them the opportunity to participate in the debate. We can't possibly endorse this. Speedy overturn and restore, but without prejudice to a fresh nomination by a good faith user.—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

overturn relist if anyone can be bothered. Agathoclea (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endose deletion. S Marshall's process analysis is convincing, and ordinarily I would agree with it. But the NFCC violation is so clear that I think it would justify summary removal of the collaged image. The copyrighted parody images can so easily be adequately reported in text that there's no basis for including them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list the NFCC violation? Because that was discounted in the original deletion debate. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original image was widely reported in the press; the parody by a popular television newsmagazine was also covered in the press -- see here for an example, which even used the image -- not from 8 Days directly, but via The New Paper, which used it here. Both are government-linked press sources. You also have to note the special political climate in Singapore, which celebrities refrain from touching even with a stick. Simply reporting the parody by text would be insufficient. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to it being relisted as a procedural matter since the original uploader wasn't notified, but deleting the thing was clearly the right decision. This BLP reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. Half of the article is about online controversies ... there is very little biography here. --B (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are mostly based on government press sources, not tabloids. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist If the NFCC argument for deletion is strong, the FFD is the place to discuss it. I don 't want to judge it myself, partly because I have so little awareness of the events that I can not judge their importance. I do think a set of three pictures would be admissible if there were no other objection than that it was a set, because they certainly do seem related and essential to understand each other. But it is time we stopped ever accepting blatantly bad-faith deletion nominations, just as with articles. An attempt from the same source to delete a political article would have, I hope, been rejected out of hand, & this is just the same. Adding an article for political propaganda is wrong-- it being accepted that a user doing so would be indefinitely blocked, and the article speedied as G11, without prejudice toa n article by a good faith editor if the subject justified it. . The same goes for an attempt to delete for political reason. Reject out of hand, block the editor, and no prejudice to further action for a good faith deletion if the deletion is justified. A sufficient allowance for the possibility that the article, or deletion might be justified is to let it be done over under proper conditions. Deny,Block,Ignore is the standard treatment for vandalism. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, relist if neeeded. Excluding those that are more familiar with the subject from the discussion is bad. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps}

Endorse. There was a prior FFD on this that I believe closed as no consensus, which I had started and other neutral observers had commented on. We were not notified of the new discussion either (in either way, for/against), and I believe that bad-faith nomination or not, had this had more people "familiar with the subject", to use Penwhale's words, it would probably still have closed as delete. I see no reason to overturn this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: While this discussion is ongoing, shouldn't the image be removed from the article? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Am the IP editor mentioned. I am not a sockpuppet and I do not see the point of your need to remind of the sockpuppetry investigation which did not conclude anything. I questioned why Elle/La goutte de pluie feels the need to mention it everywhere and insinuate the deletion was due to revenge over Vivian Balakrishnan's copyrighted images when they were not even uploaded or contributed by me. I would like to point out I had questioned the existence of these photoshopped copyrighted photos since the very beginning but did not manage to put a request for deletion through as I do not know how. I had even asked another editor for help on 3 July (under IP 202.156.13.247), shortly after I made edits on Tin Pei Ling's page, which was getting out of hand and look nothing like a biography page (truth be told). It took me a long while before I could figure out the code to put up though I wasn't sure. Not sure of the notification procedures. I had left it at that then. I still don't see why the need for the pictures for her page. And I don't get why it's even placed under fair use.202.156.13.11 (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPA notice: Likely a related sockpuppet/meatpuppet of User:220.255.1.162.

Perhaps you should try reading fair use, and the circumstances in which it can be used? Can I ask for a clearer grounds on which you object, and the particular claims in which you contest? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, the different images should be evaluated on individual basis rather than composited, the magazine images are most likely copyrighted even with the fair use argument (see misconceptions of Fair use: Noncommercial use is invariably fair), and as another above commented, the comparison can easily be reported with a text description, which voids any potential rights issue on the image. DanS76 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Uploader seems to have a more than passing understanding of what is and is not allowed with respect to copyright and fair use with respect to images[1] and copyvio content[2], so I don't understand why she is unable to accept her own arguement now.

The issues are different:

The image I uploaded is commentary on the image itself, and there is no doubt that the image involved played a significant part in the election campaign (the PAP's traditional win-share for that constituency was >70%, but it fell to 55%); for this the image can be used (as with all notable images). Case law supports the use of an image when the work directly comments or criticises the image.
The uploaded image demonstrates the significance and notability of the image in a way text cannot; many press sources commented upon the image.
I ask you to take a look at V-J Day in Times Square. Of course, America is a nation of 300 million rather than 5 million, but the fair use issues are similar. Also, take a look at the fair use rationale for File:Vietnam Kim Phúc.jpg.

I do not know why you compare this with the IPs' constant use of government-copyrighted content. This is much different. They were using it verbatim; they were not commenting upon the copyrighted text directly; there were free alternatives (i.e. rewriting the text). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, relist as individual images so they and be critiqued separately. Also the suitability of the image for deletion should be judged separately from the rationale for the deletion request action. Elle, you do realize that by your "commentary on the image" point that you are practically admitting that you are attempting to introduce OR into the article via the image. Also in any case there is no hard evidence that the original image affected poll results (feel free to provide a valid reliable source if you feel I am in error), so I don't see how that contributes to the debate. As mentioned above, one can include the fact that the image had been parodied in prose without needing to include a potentially copyrighted image. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.