Dieselpunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason for deletion given as "Recreation of deleted material". Not true--latest version of page significantly different from previous incarnation. Ottens (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm confused. The "cache" link above goes to a Steampunk article, not to the Dieselpunk article. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, there's a version of the article at User:Piecraft/Dieselpunk. Based on that, this looks like a whole lot of OR. Corvus cornix_talk 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That's how the previous version of the page looked, which was deleted in 2006 (see the old AfD discussions). A whole new page had been written, of much higher quality than the page saved at Piecraft's user page, detailing influences and types of the genre. It seems the page had been "cached" before the new version was written, when it redirected to the Steampunk article. I don't understand why the new page was deleted without discussion--indeed, I don't see why it should have been removed at all. Unfortunately it seems that now that page is lost. Ottens (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article created by Ottens in January was not simply a "recreation" of the previously deleted article. An examination of the material and the references provided would have borne this out, if care had been taken before it was precipitously deleted. Deleted, mind you, without a notice to the page's creator, or, as Ottens has said above, any discussion. As this was not a case of "recreating previously deleted material," I request that the page be reinstated and put through the AfD process. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you assume good faith on my part... J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misread a comment. Good faith was assumed. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'List at AFD The artical was actualkly prodded for lack of independant reliable sources but the deleteing admin found the AFD when they did their due diligence. My quick view is that the sources are not good enough but the place to have that discussion is AFD. Please let me know if this is listed so I can rereview the sources before casting a vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm the deleting admin (or the one referred to, anyway), and, ironically, I have not been contacted at all about this matter. I would love to see a good article on dieselpunk- I am a huge fan of the -punk genres. Sadly, that wasn't it, still containing loads of original research, with poor references. I still don't think this genre is notable, and certainly not verifiable, which is a shame. Now I look at it, I see it was reasonably far from a recreation (written in the same style, but different nonetheless) and so would be happy to recreate and send to AfD. Of course, since it is now here thanks to what seems to be various assumptions of bad faith, I will let the DRv run out its course. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin rationale: deletion upheld. This has been deleted three times in the last two weeks, already reviewed once, this resubmission is disruptive, abuse of process, and a WP:POINT violation. There was also vote canvassing, for example, here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (edit | [[Talk:User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

Strong overturn. MfD against an WIP private yet well-sourced and referenced userpage with roughly 140kB still pretty much at stub status compared to what it was supposed to develop into. The MfD's closing admin justified her closure by arguments put forth by Calton and Coredesat that were instantly refuted by a multitude of established editors and admins everytime those "arguments" were posted as those were debunked arguments against a mainspace article (of only 40-60kB) only sharing the title with what MfD closing admin has now decided to delete, and on top of that, those were arguments only valid for mainspace as explicitly stated by policy. Not to mention the deleted userpage had been created long before the particular AfD was opened on mainspace article that was very controversially closed as delete. Even the deletion of mainspace article was patently illegitimate because that second AfD had failed to provide any new nomination rationale as without a new nomination rationale any new AfD is invalid from the beginning, which is one of the many reasons why established admins such as User:John, User:Grue, User:DGG, User:Tango, User:Coren, User:@pple and others, called the closing admin Keilana's entire ability to proper judgment and fulfill her duties as an admin into question for her unwarranted personal decision to delete the mainspace article for which she was even incapable to provide any rationale for until several days later when an involved member of the delete party shoved a rationale onto her which boiled down to WP:IAR (DRV closing admin Mackensen quoted a vague unsubstantiated claim that nobody had been able to provide any rationale or refs for, even though repeatedly requested to do so, and that there was absolutely no consensus over). After that illegitimate decision, the same people went with an MfD after a different piece in private userspace which happened to have the same title, and the only "arguments" the MfD's closing admin quoted were stating that the mainspace article had been deleted. Consensus, logic, and following policy look different. --TlatoSMD (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion for the 27th time. DRV is not AfD2, and should not be a habitual response to an AfD close you disagree with. If there is a process problem, i.e. consensus was interpreted incorrectly/involvement by the admin in the discussion/early closure/etc. then DRV can correct that. If the outcome simply didn't go your way, that is not what DRV is about. Avruchtalk 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm disappointed to see that when you canvassed for votes on this DRV you didn't include me - I've participated in every discussion about this page since the initial AfD that resulted in a delete, but didn't get your 'neutral IAW WP:CANVASSING note' anyway.

Avruchtalk 08:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt canvassed either, lucky I watch Guy's page (and he wasn't canvassed either). Thanks, SqueakBox 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This might be your 27th time Avruch, however you you still can't change the fact there were and are 130 established admins and editors entirely opposed to your opinion. Don't paint your personal opinions as "consensus" just because some admins controversially agreed with you and are now therefore under attack by their peers. And the reason why I have not included you is that I still have to see you following logic or policies, or applying policies only within their strictly defined reach, on this issue. I have included Relata refero below even though they voted for delete just as you did. As much as I remember Relata stated that even the federal government of the United States of America disagree with you, Avruch, whom they claimed to be in contact with over this particular issue. I must also voice great concern with you calling "canvassing" what is verbatim referred to as "neutral, friendly notice" by policy, which was even quoted at the top of each notice. Are you feeling overwhelmed with better arguments and too many people against you, or why did you revert those? --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I apologize, I see now that you didn't revert them. The one editor who removed my notice has stated he has done so because he feels too frustrated by POV-pushing in favor of your opinion. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT EDIT: I see, now Guy is running around like a headless chicken and doing what I have warned Avruch not to do. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you genuinely think yours was a "neutral friendly notice" then it's no wonder you don't understand why this content keeps being deleted. Your text was anything but neutral, and was posted only to those you thought would support you. Also, no "running around" was required, I simply clicked the rollback links in your contribution history, it took a few seconds at most. And I reverted all your "alerts" - the fact that you only alerted those who agree with you and therefore are not in agreement with me, is not actually my problem, it's just evidence that you were engaging in unacceptable canvassing. Guy 13:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• That'll be because the user was only commenting to a partisan audience diff - "..to revert my alerts to all the people opposing his personal opinion.". Of course despite the notice which went with it to try and claim neutrality it breaches WP:CANVASS by being aimed at a partisan audience, i.e. it's an attempt at votestacking. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to hear from the closing admin before I consider this further. Certainly her stated rationale is not sufficiently explanatory. (I urged deletion.) Relata refero (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. No policy or process faults have been identified with the close, the nomination by TlatoSMD above does not address the reason for deletion. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is there any other reason than the faulty rationale supplied by closing admin? You seem to insinuate so. Please remember this is not MfD no.2. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Faulty rationale in whose opinion? You are inherently biased. Take a step back. There's nothing faulty about my close at all. It is perfectly within the bounds of policy and process. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The side in favor of delete regarding this personal userpage was so desperate because all their rationalizations, if they bothered to give any at all, were torn to pieces that towards the end Avruch and 12noon's only resort left was to plead changing policies just for this one MfD's sake (they did so in the MfD itself as well as on SSB's talkpage). --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closing admin - this didn't take too long, did it? I'm not going to go down the NPOV in userspace path, or quibble about minor variances in what I'm going to group under pedophilia. I'm concerned that this thing repeatedly crops up, a vast majority of the community is in uproar about it, and that people feel it's completely OK to store it in their userspace and expect not to receive fuss over it. Policy says that things can be stored in userspace if there is a reasonable expectation that it can be worked on and improved. This cannot. It has not been considered acceptable by the community and probably will not be. It has been judged a POV fork with a biased title and has been deleted as such. The only purpose it can serve being stored in userspace is pissing people off. It's certainly done that, it's outweighed its usefulness, and now we can all get on with it. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough rationale. There may well have been a consensus to delete - as I said, I believed it was a POV-fork in its current state - but it doesn't seem like you read the discussion. A very disappointing statement. If the "community is in uproar" then the way to fix that isn't through this sort of administrative action. Relata refero (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your blatant lying indicates that you are far from being unbiased Riana. There has never been anything like a remote consensus to even just delete the mainspace article which happened to share an identical title with what you have now chosen to delete. You stand against almost 11 dozen(!) established editors and admins being entirely opposed to a decision that was illegitimate and invalid by policy to begin with, and yet you have the audacity to ramble and parrot fabrications about "community consensus". You even try to excuse your arbitrary decision by obscenely referring to "pissing off people", which shows even more how little you ought to consider yourself qualified for entering into this matter. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that blocked TlatoSMD for 12 hours for the above personal attack. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. This is not another round of MfD, it's a review of process. The MfD was properly decided, by strong consensus, with around 75% of the 48 or 49 commenting editors recommending deletion based on policy. There is no good reason for this DRV because there is no way the MfD could have been closed as anything other than delete, based on the count and content of the comments.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The one-line opinions you're quoting, if they bothered to refer to policy at all, were so poorly founded and informed that they were all referring to a policy officially legislated as not applicable on userspace. That's no valid consensus, that's just partisan noise, to quote SSB. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (endorse) with fire and block TlatoSMD for about a month for being so blasted disruptive about this matter. Viridae^Talk 09:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is the very first AfD, MfD, or DRV I have ever started on the English-language Wikipedia. The very fact that so many people, including a number of established admins, back me up or share my party in such polls ought to teach you better. You are defiling your very own status with such a blatant assumption of bad faith even towards your own admin peers. I therefore demand an apology. --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The nomination reads to me like an attempt to refight the AFD and prevuious DRVs on this article and misses the point of the MFD. The community has already decided they do not want this article in main space right now so there is no prospect of any userfied article being moved back. Therefore, keeping the thing on a user pace is outwith policy. We are only be reviewing the MFD here & I can see no other outcome from the discussion with consensus measured against policy then deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The nominator was just issued a 12-hour block. Hopefully it'll give him time to cool down a bit, as he was visibly upset and didn't really mean what he said. Can we at least wait for him to come back? I wouldn't say that the deletion was clearly out of process, but the closing rationale is a bit lacking, isn't it. That was yet another contentious debate, and a closing rationale showing that the closing admin has indeed weighed all arguments fairly would have been appreciated. Bikasuishin (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DRVs generally hang around for 5 days before they are closed and I doubt that this one will be closed early. I'm probably the worst offender for closing DRVs early and even I can see this needs to go the full distance. TlatoSMD can just pick up this discussion where he left off after his block expires. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse as per consensus at all previous deletion discussions. The only new evidence at this review is the determination of a minority of editors to engage in abuse for their cause. MikeHobday (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - for God's sake, this has been endorsed about six times in the past month. Will ^(talk) 11:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong (possibly speedy) endorse deletion, nothing is going to change (the mainspace article is salted, there is no way this will be anything other than a POV fork, etc, etc), DRV is not XFD part 2, etc, etc, this is going to remain deleted. There is extremely strong consensus to leave this page deleted; it is not acceptable in any namespace. Block the nominator a longer period of time for being disruptive over the issue, whether it's his first DRV nomination or not. --Coredesat 12:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this debate was closed by a non-admin Sceptre but I have overturned this. a) DRVs should be closed by admins. b) DRVs usually run full length and this controversial enough to require full debate c) the nominator is currently blocked and (I just noticed) D) Sceptre has already contributed to the debate and under no circumstances can be consider impartial enough to close this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Think about it - do you really want five days of pointless meta-debate just because of process? Will ^(talk) 12:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Think about it yourself? Do you want this rehashed again because it was closed so far out of process even I can see its wrong? I'm not the slightest bit process driven but you pretty much gave people an excuse to keep this going after this DRV closes. You know better then that. I suggest further discussion takes place on our talk pages to avoid further unnecessary disruption. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - closure was entirely competent. Addhoc (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I'm not sure. I don't think this group of users are endearing themselves to anyone, or encouraging others to treat their articles etc how they would wish by how they carry on, and it was right to block Tlato, who has been warned numerous times, formally or informally, about personal attacks before. On the other hand, I believe he's sincere in his desire to make a good-ish article about ACS, and I think with the exception of attack pages perhaps, users should be allowed to work on what they wish in their own user space. Merkinsmum 13:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The usual thing here is that "their own user space", isn't their's, it's just another wikipedia page set aside for a specific user to help in the process of building the encyclopedia, anything outside that we shouldn't allow (per WP:NOT), generally fairly wide latitude is given. Broadening out the use of userspace to "Anything" is pretty much against the purpose the the whole project, and certainly not what many of the donors who keep the site running would believe they are paying towards. We could get into a slippery slope argument here, allow this then why not this and this and this... To try and keep things reasonable we use WP:MFD to keep in line with current consensus, that is what has happened here. Realisically if anyone wants to work on an article which they believe can be useful in the future even if the current consensus is not, there is absolutely nothing stopping them doing so on their own computer using a suitable text editor etc. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, speedily if possible to cut short the pointless recycled drama -- perhaps a conflict of interest since I'm actually cited in the decision, and man, that is flattering. Needless to say, perhaps, it's clear to me, at least, that the "debunking" User:TlatoSMD rages on about are no such thing: whether a POV fork to save a deleted article was created before or after the deletion trigger was pulled makes no difference whatsoever. What counts is whether said POV fork is retained, and the answer is "no". --Calton | Talk 14:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure I read through the MFD along with the AfD's and DRV's and numerous talk pages, I find that the actions of the closing admin is representative of the consensus and the consensus was based on policy. Please read my comments on the talk page about the whole discussions that have taken place as reading them did raise some concerns. Gnangarra 14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As this is not MfD 2, I will not comment on the article, just on Riana's closure. There was consensus to delete the article, Riana followed process and deleted it. Please, stop with the knee-jerk DRVs. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion.(ec x 18)DRV is not AfD 2. This particular DRV is not AfD 4. I believe the mainpage article had merit, I believe the closing of the mainspace article AfD was against consensus, but the consensus on the mainspace article DRV was pretty clear. For some reason the MfD turned into some sort of 3rd AfD. I haven't voiced my there, but the close looks alright to me, don't make this AfD4.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - And will add that the user who opened this DRV would garner more positive attention if s/he didn't make positive declarations about what is legitimate and what isn't. A closing decision isn't "illegitimate" just because it was controversial, or because you think you "debunked" the arguments it was based on. DRV is for closings that were somehow handled inappropriately. This deletion discussion showed a pretty clear consensus -- and sure there will still be people who are unhappy with any decision regarding a controversial topic like this. That doesn't mean the closing needs to be re-examined. It was a proper closing, and so far I haven't seen any evidence of mishandling. Of course Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but there was quite an overwhelming majority in favor of deletion. C'mon now... This seems a little petty. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:29, 9 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - (ec) Riana closed the MfD as Delete mainly per arguments put forward by Calton and Coredesat. I'm going to break with tradition and only look at this by evaluating the arguments Riana advanced (by reference).
  • Calton supports the userfication of deleted pages only if there's some potential for saving them in the first place.
  • Coredesat holds that if an AfD closed as Delete, the page should not be preserved in userspace indefinitely. Coredesat supports this with the contention that to do so is in effect subverting the deletion discussion and its consensus.
    • Factually, the article wasn't deleted then userfied. A prior version was userfied, then a heavily edited later version was deleted.
    • Even assuming arguendo that the facts are right, a deleted article can be kept in userspace to work on its content.
    • The AfD explicitly argued that the content of the deleted article should be covered by other articles. Therefore, the content of this userpage can be incorporated into other articles, once reworked to address NPOV & other issues.
      • One of Coredesat's points actually supports this contention, stating that other articles on related issues exist.
  • Calton holds that the very existence of the page's title makes this a no-go.
  • Coredesat states that the title is non-neutral
    • Naming issues call for renaming, not deletion. Call the article Draft 3.14 and the argument vanishes in a poof of logic. I don't see this as an argument to delete at all.
  • Coredesat views the consensus as that the content constituted a blatant POV fork and should be deleted as one
    • Assuming that the userpage is there to improve its content, its currently being a POV fork isn't determinative of whether to delete.
    • Similarly, since this page is (by definition) not encyclopedic content and not subject to article content policies like NPOV.
  • Coredesat: Keeping this around could bring the project as a whole into disrepute
    • This is the strongest argument for deletion. Having what is regarded (rightly or wrongly) as a pro-pedophile page in userspace does pose a threat to public sentiment. Look what happened to MySpace recently, for example. On the other hand, this is one user's private workspace, and any publicity can be countered by the fact that we did remove this article from mainspace.
    • Also, I fear that if we start down this path, it'll be hard to redraw the line later between what is unpopular but within policy and what is simply unpopular.
    • Should the presence of this page incite disruption, then that user conduct issue can be dealt with (as it already has). If nothing else, the large number of references gathered for this article merit keeping.
• No sound policy basis to remove this userspace page has been advanced. Its title may well be dead, but its content can be reworked and included in a number of other articles. Even the things we hate have a place here. The bottom line is that none of the arguments advanced are valid, sound policy arguments, so the close was well-intentioned, but incorrect. --SSBohio 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument that naming issues are solved by renaming, is that the correct title already exists - which is why this was deleted form mainspace as a POV-fork. The deleting rationale is perfectly sound; it means that Calton and Coredesat best summed up the arguments, and best linked the issue to the very substantial consensus that is represented by policy and guidelines, rather than the agreement of the few dozen at most who turn up at deletion debates. Consensus here is pretty clear: we already cover this subject at other titles, albeit that some people plainly don't like those titles. we don't fix that by creating a POV-fork. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name is irrelevant, and to raise it an example of the red herring fallacy. Such an argument only has merit if the only use of this material is to recreate the adult-child sex article. Since this topic is covered in other articles (it was established at the AfD among other places), the content and the references have a claim to usefulness in mainspace and should be kept per userpage policy. There is no valid assertion of policy upon which to delete. There is, however, clear policy basis upon which to keep. Misapplication of policy cannot be upheld simply because it's popular or expedient. --SSBohio 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist The closing admin listed "mainly per arguments put forward by Calton and Coredesat" rather than consensus. Further these arguments are to a significant extent about the name, not the content, two of the deleted pages did not use the name in question meaning that those versions should not be deleted under this MfD in any-case. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21 9 February 2008 (GMT).
• Endorse. I don't see where process was violated, and DRV is not the place overturn a decision just because you don't like the way it turned out. -- Donald Albury 15:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but permit userification of the content under a different title. There is no question hat a page of this nature is not likely to be accepted in WP, for a variety of reasons. It is not at all evident that some of the content is useless and cannot be used is appropriate places. in context then, the continuation of this material under the present title strikes me as deliberately provocative and not helpful to the encyclopedia. At least some of the material could be preserves as a list of quotes and citations in userspace, which would allow for their possible appropriate use. I suggest a title such as "references and quotations on human sexuality."DGG (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, User:DGG has an excellent judgement when it comes to deletion discussions. This is no exception. Keeping some content here could serve a good purpose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Why are we still on this? Simple reason: POLICY.

• In Accordance With Wikipedia:CSD#G4, a userspace copy of a formerly deleted article is acceptable and cannot be speedily deleted. — "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions".

• Additionally, a userfied copy does not meet deletion requirements of Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria. — "The following are not sufficient, by themselves, to justify speedy deletion ... Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain."

That's the whole point of userfication. There is no other argument, in favor or in opposition. (And no, there was no canvassing... read the policy and read the notes... it met the requirements.)

VigilancePrime (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly qualifies under this clause. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why you are arguing about G4, this was deleted via an WP:MFD. You might be interest in Arbcom's previous take on WP:USER means in relation to subpages - you'll find that here. Reagrdless this is rearguing the deletion debate which is not what DRV is for. As for canvassing, yes canvassing of this WP:DRV occurred, looking at WP:CANVASS it has a nice diagram to simplify it, look along the row "Disruptive Canvassing" to the column "Audience", you'll see it reads "Partisan". Informing only the side of the debate who agrees with you is canvassing a partisan audience, it is an attempt at votestacking. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion It couldn't be speedy'd under the above policy, but a properly closed MfD is certainly a permissible means of deletion. This was a proper MfD, during which a consensus developed, and an admin, exercising discretion in line with conensus, deleted the page. MBisanz ^talk 18:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse and lets move on. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The close, when reading through the arguments cited in it, seems to be fine to me, and well within conensus. Supporters: take it offline, build it there, bring it back at some point if conensus changes. Move on and edit in peace. Problem solved! Tony Fox (arf!) 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - Let's be done with this. FCYTravis (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm seeing a number of endorsements on the basis of being tired of seeing this come up over & over. Even the deleting admin referred to it in comments above. Keeping it won't end the controversy, but neither will deleting it. The strong opinions on each side will not weaken no matter what is done with this content. Current policy allows such pages, and policy should be our guide. If the community wants to restrict userspace against pages like this, then a consensus to change policy needs to be demonstrated. --SSBohio 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse, the subpage was deleted correctly as a pov-content fork that would never be placed in the main article space, and was clearly meant to preserve the fork contrary to the several AfDs, MfDs and DRVs filed on this very same thing. I think this has now crossed the line into disruptive use of process and is being used by several editors as a soapbox. The uncivil comments and accusations made by some editors here are completely out of line. Dreadstar † 00:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Offending Team/Glossary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_GLOSSARY_NOT_A_DICTIONARY 4 commentators stated it was a dictionary whilst entries were at the 'A' section, and before B and subsequent sections were added. 1 user stated 'Inappropriate' because she had already deleted 2 articles on 31st January on the (incorrect) assumption of copyright violation. I accepted that 1 article (A Manual) was better suited to Wikia. The Glossary was reinstated with positive help from RHawaorth, but without support from Deb, who appeared unwilling to read the revised version and also proceeded to delete Feb 8th additions, whilst claiming not to know the reason for deletion, when asked for clarification as to why those additions were not shown. Despite spending inordinate amounts of time responding to Deb's post hoc reasons for 31st Jan deletions, I was accused of wasting her time, when all that was required was cessation of harrassment of a newbie, in favour of the help and goodwill offered by others ie RHaworth, JimfBleak and SGGH }} SJB (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Which article is this in reference to? --Coredesat 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, near-unanimous consensus to delete, and the page was a misuse of subpages. Glossaries aren't too much different than dictionaries in terms of purpose; they don't belong here. --Coredesat 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, consensus was unanimous that this simply wasn't an encyclopedia article, and I'm not seeing anything in this DRV listing that argues that that consensus was incorrect. --Stormie (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comments

• Please clarify the 'misuse of subpages', thanks.
• Wiki's definition of Glossary - A glossary is a list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms. In this case the domain is Youth/Juvenile Offending, hence the subpage article.
• As stated above, I have a page on Wikia for the Manual. Could the deleted Glossary be transferred over to that space please ?--SJB (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Vera, how could you expect people to copy it over if you did not provide a link? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: RH, I attempted to elicit a positive response from a hostile environment, before providing a further target for baiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veraguinne (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response; No-one has bothered to amplify the accusation of 'misuse' of a subpage.

Comments from Deb - I'm not that bothered about the accusations of "harassment" from this user (if anything, it's been the other way around), but I feel I must point out some false statements in the above tirade, viz.

1. I did not delete Veraguinne's other article on the grounds of copyright violation, but on the grounds of lack of context - which is quite clear from the deletion log.
2. I am not aware of having deleted anything by this user on January 31st, or indeed anything other than the one article Youth Offending Team/Referral Orders Manual referred to above. The log also confirms this.
3. I did not delete any "additions" to the glossary on 8th February and I am, frankly, baffled by this accusation. Deb (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Since I only joined Wiki in the last week(s) of January, this counter-accusation of harrassment is both disingenuous and paranoid. You wrote: I have a suspicion there may also be a copyright issue, as the text appears to be substantially copied from a printed source. Apologies if I'm wrong on that last one. Deb (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

QED - I said that I thought there might be a copyright issue and I actually apologised in advance if I was wrong. However, the deletion log clearly shows this was not the reason for deletion. If you looked at it, then you must be aware of this. Deb (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2: You also claimed that no context was given. This was because it was clearly a subpage of Youth Offending Team and therefore self-explanatory. ( btw No amplification of claimed 'misuse' has materialised to date.)

Response: You deleted 'A-Z Jargon Buster' without bothering to read the article history which showed that another Admin JimfBleak was trying to help a Newbie. Nor did you bother to explain the reasoning(??). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimfbleak#A-Z_Jargon_Buster

On checking the deletion log, I see that I did delete the jargon buster, 24 hours after Jimfbleak had deleted it and after you had re-posted it. I deleted it because it had been tagged as a copyright violation by User:Unit17. You must have noticed the tag, as the article history shows that you edited it twice after the tag was placed, so you should not have been surprised by the deletion.

Response 2: I did not notice any tag. I only discovered your auspicious intervention by luck after you had deleted it without so much as a single word of explanation.

Your shoot-from-the-hip deletion policy appears so indiscriminate that you are not even able to register that you had made a deletion !

I had overlooked it because you wrongly gave the date of the deletion as 31st January and you did not give the name of the article. Deb (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2 QED

Response: Of course I cannot show your undo actions, since the deletion history is not available. However, I registered the fact of deletions to a Non-Hostile Admin, RHaworth:

Why can't I add any more information to the Glossary ? --SJB (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And did RHaworth say that I had deleted your additions? Of course not, because it didn't happen. I have access to the whole history of the deleted article, and you are the only person who edited it on the date you specify. In fact, only two users ever edited it - yourself and RHaworth. Deb (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment If you are indeed too hard-pressed by your own authorship ("My main reason for being at wikipedia is to make contributions of my own. By constantly questioning the judgment of other contributors and asking for repeated explanations, you are taking me - and others - away from that task" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veraguinne ) then may I respectfully suggest that the role of Admin is an Inappropriate for your particular talents. --SJB (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that assisting users with a belligerent "the-world-is-against-me" attitude like yours is way beyond my capabilities. Fortunately that isn't what administrators are here for. Deb (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2: If an attempt to call you to account for crassness is construed as 'harrassment' and 'beligerence', then heaven help those whom you do assist. As an Admin you were of no help to me whatsoever. Thanks.--SJB (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]