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

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

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

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

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

  And that both MfD discussions were taken in account in the closure. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. - jc37 17:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have requested "more eyes" on all of this at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please. (archived here.) It also lists a bit of a chronology and other information which may be helpful. - jc37 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Endorse, for two reasons:

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

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

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

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

There is a clear consensus even here to overturn, what are you so afraid of?  Giacomo  10:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is all too weird. I admit to being confused at the MfD. I still don't understand why this copy was, or would have been, created. Why are we discussing this MfD, and not the one which this page was a copy of? Why is this page undeleted, but not the one we are discussing (even if they are identical? I would like to know more about the Rlevse departure, and while the page in question doesn't explain anything to me, I am sure that deletion is not the way to clarification. If there is a place with an explanation of the Rlevse affair, I still think that a redirect would be helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. Deleting this kind of thing isn't very clever. All it does is drive the drama offwiki. Let Giano have his say and his talkpages, and pay him as much or as little attention as you want. The fact that it's a duplicate of another talk page is entirely irrelevant because this isn't encyclopaedic content. It's to do with Wikipedia's governance and rules. And that's all DRV should have to say about it because it doesn't matter whether Giano's reasons for wanting a copy of this page in his userspace are valid or not. All that matters is that a good faith user thinks there's a valid reason.

  I don't agree with Giano's reasons for keeping this page but you won't persuade someone to think differently by purging his userspace.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So, to be clear (and this is a sincere question) - Fear of potential drama is a valid reason to not do what we would normally do? How is that not a case of: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"? (quoted from Animal Farm) - Are we really setting up a situation where being an editor who others see as causing drama, gives a carte blanche pass for that editor to do whatever they want, regardless of the policies in place? I find that difficult to believe, and really difficult to endorse as a wikiphilosophy. - jc37 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No we are talking of an editor who knows Wikipedia policy inside out, and how to apply it better than most Admins. The page was created becase I suspected the original would be deleted to spare two Arbs' blushes (which it was - and will be again). Now be a good chap and restore the page before you begin to look even more foolish and we have to take this matter elsewhere.  Giacomo  20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait a minute. What?

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

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

  From your tone, I might guess that this may come as a shock to you, but the world doesn't revolve around you, Giacamo. People can actually take neutral actions merely for reasons related to policy and practice.

  I'm sincerely sorry for you that (as you seem to indicate) you feel otherwise. - jc37 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, fear of potential drama isn't a valid reason to avoid doing what you'd normally do. But if you'd normally delete material out of someone's userspace when that user has a good faith belief that it relates to Wikipedia's governance, then the problem isn't with the user.

  First, matters relating to Wikipedia's governance absolutely do belong on Wikipedia. They do not belong offwiki. Deleting people's userspace won't stop the discussion, it'll just drive it elsewhere, to nobody's benefit.

  Second, Giano does have latitude in these things. The purpose of everything that isn't mainspace is to support the people who write the encyclopaedia and like it or not, writing the encyclopaedia is exactly what Giano does. And that absolutely does entitle Giano to latitude and tolerance, because Wikipedia without Giano would be Wikipedia with less drama—but also Wikipedia with a great deal less content. And encyclopaedic content is what we're here to provide. Kindly treat those who produce it with great respect.

  The emerging consensus at this DRV is that we need to put up with this page. Good faith users need to discuss Rlevse's various errors and mistakes because it's a serious issue and it ought to affect how we choose our most trusted users in the future. We need to let the discussion flow naturally.—S Marshall T/C 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  We typically give more latitude in userspace to editors. I don't disagree. But this is about a closure of an MfD. As I'm fairly sure you know, DRV isn't XFD-2. So I'm not sure how your comments apply to this discussion. (Though I have little doubt you'll clarify shortly : ) - jc37 21:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fit to be an admin, you are starting to seem otherwise? The page needs restoring, now go and get on with it! Do as you are told and we shall say mo more!  Giacomo  21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Jc37, there are several possible lines of argument at DRV. The most common one is that the closer failed to close in accordance with the consensus, but there are others. Sometimes, one can also reasonably argue that the !votes were not in accordance with policy, or that the closer failed to weigh the !votes correctly. What this boils down to is the argument that whether or not the closure was in accordance with the consensus, the consensus itself was wrong in some important respect. DRV does consider these instances, even where it means that to a certain extent it's necessary to re-argue the XfD.

  In this case, my position is that to whatever extent that there was a consensus to delete—a matter that other users have already addressed adequately—the arguments supporting that consensus were untenable in the light of the facts.

  Finally, my position is that the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia a better place. DRV contributors have wide latitude to make any analysis or engage in any discussion that serves that end.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Thank you for clarifying.

  Let me ask this...

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

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

  G10 reads "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." I think the argument here is that the page DID serve another purpose - that is to allow a debate of the issues by troubles users. Whether it did that well? ymmv.--Scott Mac 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you'd be hard pressed to call that a civil debate on issues... - jc37 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's true that there's an extent to which this page disparages Rlevse. And I think it's true that there's an extent to which it meets the criteria for G10. But there's always a judgment call to be made: just because something can be made to fit a speedy deletion criterion, does that mean the speedy deletion should automatically happen? In this case there are shades of grey.

  First, those who're in high office can expect a degree of scrutiny, and some of that scrutiny may be hostile. It goes with the territory. In accepting a post as arbitrator, Rlevse was also accepting that he would be held to high standards and open to criticism. The fact that he's resigned and RTVed doesn't entitle him to escape a close examination of what he said and did while in post.

  Second, there's a serious discussion to be had about copyright on Wikipedia and Rlevse is an excellent example of why. It would be arguable that Rlevse has broken the law. We take copyright seriously and we need to take it more seriously, and discussions about this need to be encouraged. Not censored.

  Third, Wikipedia has a culture of openness that it's important to respect. Giano has good faith suspicions about what's gone on and attempts to delete the content he's examining justifies Giano's suspicions. In other words, there's an extent to which deleting the page makes Giano look as if he's in the right—it has exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, actually, based upon the comments in the discussions, the disparagement of the page was towards Giacomo. The intent, as described, was "making fun of" his making User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair; which was (presumably) "tracking" events that he seemed to feel were important in relation to Rlevse.

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

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

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

  But anyway, as noted, this is about it being intended to disparage Giacomo. And obviously he considers it so, else he wouldn't want it kept "visible" for "evidence".

  So, with all that in mind, again I ask: Why should this be any different than any other page which disparages? Why do you feel that this (I'm referring to the original page, and which would also apply to the copy) does not meet speedy deletion G10? - jc37 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's not logically tenable to G10 a page for disparaging Giano, when Giano vocally wants to retain it. The only rational basis for a G10 is that it disparages someone who doesn't want it kept.—S Marshall T/C 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  We are concerned about what the target of a page feels about the page when dealing with BLP concerns. This isn't about BLP concerns. And I still have not seen any argument which suggests that the page is not disparagement. And that was true in the two MfD discussions, and it's true here. Rather than looking at bolded votes, I'm looking at what is actually being said.

  And you even suggest that the page is somewhat disparaging to Rlevse.

  A page which is designed to directly "make fun of" another specific Wikipedian, which is intentionally disparaging. That's a G10.

  According to WP:NPA: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (Bolding mine, the italics are on the page.)

  It's just contrary to what we are supposed to be attempting to achieve here.

  And then when looking at:

  Statement of principles

  Simplified ruleset

  The orange pillar at Wikipedia:Five_pillars

  and even looking at #4 here: meta:Founding_principles.

  To use your term, I think your position that this is appropriate (or even that it's merely not contrary to existing policy) is just not logically tenable. - jc37 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused. I thought it was your position that Giano was the target of the disparagement?—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. I was merely noting that you (and for that matter, the nominator of both MfDs) also felt that the page was disparaging, though you each suggested it was disparaging towards Rlevse. So that still makes it disparaging to a specific individual. Sorry for not being clearer. - jc37 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, no need to apologise, that's okay. What I said about disparagement of Rlevse was that there was "an extent to which" it was taking place, but then I explained the reasons why I didn't think that trumped Giano's wish to have this page in his userspace. You came back and said that in your view, the disparagement was towards Giano. I said that it didn't make sense to me to delete material out of Giano's userspace, that Giano wanted to keep, because it was disparaging of Giano. And I think that's where we are with G10, aren't we?

  You've now introduced a question about whether the page was appropriate in view of the five pillars and Jimbo's statement of principles, and I understand that argument but disagree with it. This is a userspace page that's (at least tangentially) relevant to Wikipedia's governance and copyright on Wikipedia. Such material strikes me as reasonable to keep in userspace.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  For the first part, let's be clear: I was and am talking about the original. The closure was based upon both discussions, applying comments from both to the question of whether the original should be kept. (Forcing people to copy/paste comments which are relevant to both discussions, or at least not acknowledging that comments from both discussions applied to the question seems to me to fly in the face of attempting to discern a true consensus. Do you disagree?) And so by extension, the copy should be deleted if the original was. That is to say, if the content of the original is G10, then any direct copy of the original would also be G10. (one of the fundamentals behind G4.)

  And so, Giacomo keeping a copy of the original in his userspace, because he wants it as evidence- obviously because he feels it's disparaging - only helps confirm the application of G10 to the original. And again, if the original goes, so too should the copy.

  And by the way, I personally think this DRV would have been more appropriate to be about the original, rather than questioning whether the copy of a deleted page should exist. (Which merely makes it a G4, as Black Falcon notes.)

  And I wasn't introducing something new (AFAIK), I was re-affirming the policy behind G10, as well as affirming the applicability of G10 in this case - as a direct response to your suggestion that there was no policy reason to delete. Which, to me is simply incorrect. One may argue whether "disparagement through humour" may be allowable in userspace, I suppose, or may argue whether the page in question was indeed disparaging. But I find it ridiculous (sorry again) to suggest that G10 is not policy, and to suggest that "disparaging" is not a part of G10, when it states that clearly. But if you want to argue whether disparagement should be included in G10, I suggest an RfC on the matter at the VP or CSD.

  But if you agree that a.) disparagement is a part of the G10 criteria and b.) that the page was disparaging of one or more individuals (regardless of how it was being done), then I would presume that you would endorse the deletion, under G10. To do otherwise would seem to be directly contrary to every policy and guideline we have on civility/NPA. - jc37 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jc37, this is now entering the realms of the ridiculous, there was an overwhelming consensus to keep this page at AFD. Here, there is an overwhelming consensus to restore it. It seems to me that you are now being obstructive. Just restore the page please.  Giacomo  22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that disparagement is part of the G10 criteria and I agree that there's an extent to which this page was disparaging of Rlevse but I don't endorse the deletion. There are times when someone's so senior and their actions are so unfortunate that it becomes acceptable to allow mildly critical or disparaging material; see Essjay controversy for an example of this that's survived in the mainspace. I would not endorse a G10 deletion of Essjay-related material and to my mind, the same applies to Rlevse.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So to make certain I understand your perspective: You agree that disparagement is part of G10, and that G10 is policy and is appropriate in most cases. But that, because you see this as being in relation to recent events around Rlevse, this should be considered an extraordinary situation? And therefore, essentially, you feel G10 doesn't apply per WP:IAR? - jc37 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator has to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion. All kinds of speedy deletion were originally specific applications of IAR. Nor do I agree that G10 is "appropriate in most cases". My position is that where a speedy deletion criterion applies, the administrator must then make a judgment call about whether, in view of all the circumstances, it's appropriate to actually press the "delete" button—in other words, the deleter must have made a positive decision to delete. The closer is then accountable to DRV for that decision. DRV will not necessarily just assess whether the closer strictly applied policy; a judgment call has been made and DRV contributors may take into account a wide range of factors. This is what I'm doing.

  I've explained why, although you have an arguable case based on strict application of one particular policy, I believe that the correct judgment call in the circumstances would be not to delete the page. (Meanwhile, others have been explaining why the deletion wasn't in accordance with the consensus either. I haven't addressed that because the matter is well covered already.)

  Quite aside from these things, I also think the circumstances around Rlevse are exceptional and will need to be considered with the absolute maximum of transparency. Our position on copyright violations is as vulnerable as our position on BLPs was after the Siegenthaler incident and blindly following the letter of the rules is inappropriate in the circumstances. I think it's quite possible that there will need to be some rule-ignoring in order to get a fully transparent discussion going.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator has to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion." - None of us "has" to do anything, of course. Though I might suggest that in most cases we should probably delete copyvio and unsourced BLP kerfuffle on sight.

  That said, attack pages should be deleted on sight. And I doubt you disagree in most cases. It's not collegiate in any sense. And definitely not WP:CIVIL. And we have many policies and guidelines concerning it. WP:NPA in particular.

  Anyway, all that aside, as I mentioned already, the main concern is that the page was disparaging to Giacomo.

  And your argument would be more appropriate concerning an MfD of User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair.

  But I sincerely do not see how it applies to this page.

  Incidentally, speaking of transparency. Prior to this DRV, I had a good faith request on my talk page to restore it so that it could be viewed by "voters" in relation to some questions by Giacomo. While I'm not certain I did the right thing there (as I noted there), I erred on the side of transparency. And that (in my opinion) is where the WP:IAR comes in. Not in generally saying "keep just-in-case it's needed for transparency".

  Also, looking at our discussion, I think it's hardly tenable for anyone to suggest that any of the "votes" which say that there is no policy-based reason to delete, are accurate in any way. There is indeed a policy-based reason to delete. It's just that you (and some others) appear disagree that the policy should be applied in this case. And that WP:IAR should apply instead. Mostly to avoid potential on-wiki drama, and to allow transparency for events seemingly tangently related to events just prior to Rlevse's retirement. You know, that sounds odd, even typing it. I feel like we're creating an Erdros number related to Rlevse events. (Or if you prefer, six degrees of separation from Rlevse events.) You now have me wondering: At what point is the association not relevant, and just an excuse? - jc37 21:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if it was the copyvio, unsourced BLP or attack page that you mention, I'd be strongly in the "endorse" camp. But it's stretching things entirely too far to call this an attack page. It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies.

  I've said before that your "main concern" makes no sense to me at all. If it's in Giano's userspace and Giano wants to keep it, then a deletion on the grounds that it disparages Giano himself is not a logical response.

  To my mind the Rlevse affair calls into question: (1) how and why we choose our most senior community figures; (2) on what basis we choose to trust them; (3) how they're mentored and supervised; (4) how we select and vet our most highly-recommended articles; and (5) our attitude to sources, particularly how closely these should be followed in a featured article (and as an aside, I'm a great deal more persuaded by Risker's remarks than by SandyGeorgia's). I believe that any material in userspace to any of these ends, widely interpreted, should be tolerated for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  (de-dent) - It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies - Ok, I've said it several times, and apparently it's being missed. I am referring to the original page. and was doing so in the closure. This DRV has issues if just on the face of being a pseudo-procedural nom (though scott mac addressed that immediately), and that a copy of a page is being DRV'ed rather than the page itself.

  So let me ask you directly:

  1. Do you dispute that User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair is a page which disparages, which makes it (by our current definition) an attack page.
  2. Do you feel that the two MfD discussions (of the original and of the copy) overall asserted that the original page (the one I just linked to in #1) was not disparaging? Do you feel that they did assert that it was disparaging (even while saying NOHARM, and/or ITSFUNNY)
  3. With most of the comments at the two discussions being NOHARM, ITSFUNNY, and a presumably misapplied COPYVIO comment, do you feel that the assertion that IAR should apply was well-founded in policy in those discussions? And if so, where? And do you feel that there were any comments asserting differently?
  4. Do you feel that the copy of the deleted page should be retained even if the original is deleted, or do you feel that your arguments better apply to the original? Including a question of whether retaining the edit history have value, or is the mere facade "the important thing"?
  5. And if it's determined (either from the original closure or DRV or whatever) that the original is to be deleted per policy, is there any reason that you see that the copy should be retained in that situation?
  6. Is the main thrust of your concern about the talk page. And would retaining the original talk page as a protected archive, while deleting the associated main page (and any and all copies of the main page or talk page), address with your concerns? - jc37 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of these questions seem obvious to me, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance that you're trying to convey. So I would appreciate your responses/thoughts. - jc37 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) I think that User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair is mildly disparaging of Rlevse. I feel that in view of all the surrounding facts and circumstances, to conclude that it's an "attack page" is a bit too strong. It has other purposes than just to disparage anyone. Yes, on the face of it it's humour but there's a serious undercurrent.

  (2) I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said. I think where we're disconnecting is, I suspect your position is that this is one of the cases where policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus. It doesn't; there are times when policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus, but other times when consensus trumps a strict reading of policy. I'm afraid that I think this is one of the latter. The background to this is quite complicated and nuanced and it wasn't envisaged when the policies were written.

  (3) I think I've answered this under the previous point.

  (4) I'm talking about the actual page that's the subject of this DRV (which is the version from Giano's userspace). I feel if it's to be retained then it's to be retained--the whole thing, edit history and all.

  (5) Of course, you're right to say it's nonsensical to delete the source page but keep the copy. If this DRV concludes that you're to be overturned, then this DRV has effectively decided that the second MfD has overwritten the first.

  (6) I haven't considered the question of whether to protect the original page, and that's not within DRV's purview. However, I will go so far as to say, I think that it's unfortunate that the same closer dealt with both MfDs, and in the circumstances you should probably take it that if the consensus at this DRV is to overturn you, then it means you're through performing any further admininstrative actions on that page. If you feel strongly that it ought to be protected, then I suggest you should persuade another admin to do it.—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  For #1 - Thanks for answering. Though there are a lot of "hints" at things that I'm not sure of what you are wanting to convey. What do you consider the "serious undercurrent" to that page, for example?

  " I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said." - Really? Other than maybe User:Eluchil404, I don't see where anyone actually assessed the consensus, other than blankly asserting that the closure was contrary to consensus. I do see several suggesting overturning based upon concerns about on-wiki drama (and the assertion that this should be WP:IAR kept due to transparency concerns). But actual explanation concerning assessment of the closure would appear to be decidedly lacking.

  "The background to this is quite complicated and nuanced and it wasn't envisaged when the policies were written" - Hence why you feel WP:IAR should be invoked in this case.

  For #3, you just answered the question by saying that you don't want to answer the question...

  For #4 it occurs to me that you can't see the edit history to note that the only edits are Giano making the copy. (Except for this interesting edit by demiurge100, which just attempts to change giacomo's intro to the page.) While the actual edit history for what is copied to User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair resides at User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair.

  As for #5 - nice try at placing the cart before the horse. (Among other things.) What's more likely is that another DRV would follow this one. (If anything.)

  And for #6 you didn't answer the question.

  Well, so much for my good faithed attempt to discern your perspective on the closure.

  And since for much of this thread you claim that you were merely talking about the sole copy nommed here, while I was talking about all the pages (because I, in good faith, would actually like a discussion about the whole of this, rather than what I'm seeing in this DRV of cherry picking, only nomming a copy of a deleted page, and seemingly creating confusion, and trying to use that confusion to get a result that's favourable to IWANTIT and other blank assertions), this whole thread has us apparently talking past each other, even though I, in good faith, was trying to make a real attempt to discern your POV. So anyway, I guess that there's little point to continue to ask, if you're not interested in answering. Thanks anyway. - jc37 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I don't think that you intended to lay a trap for me, but a trap exists. I won't repeat the background and history to the Rlevse affair here because if I do, then some genius will G10 the DRV. Can I take it that where you haven't answered what I've said, you agree with it?—S Marshall T/C 11:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn no consensus to delete at MfD. no policy-based reason to delete. -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sad overturn I'd have !voted to delete had I known of it, but I don't think it meets speedy guidelines and the !vote was clearly in support of keeping. Bah. Hobit (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Issues of policy raised by the closing administrator were already considered in the discussion and the consensus at AfD was for retention. There is no evidence that G8 speedy deletion is justified here. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Essentially per Scott Mac's remarks. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - The page was a attack page, even if it was slapped with a humor template. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oveturn - As I understand it, Giacomo's page (the one we're discussing now at DRV) was deleted under speedy deletion WP:CSD#G4 - Copy of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The parent page, Demiurge1000's page, was deleted under WP:CSD#G10 speedy deletion: Pages that disparage their subject and serve no other purpose. Since CSD#G4 excludes content which was deleted via speedy deletion, Giacomo's page cannot be deleted under CSD#G4. That's a shame because I thought my delete argument at the Giacomo's page MfD -- "It may not be negative or an attack, but it is non-article space contentious material about living persons (Giano and/or Rlevse) that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices. It should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate per WP:BLPTALK." carried the day. In any event, Demiurge1000's page was improperly deleted under CSD#G10, so on restoring Demiurge1000's page (which, it apparently now is live User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair and protected with an untrue {{mfd}} template on it[1]), Giacomo's page would be restored. Both pages could have been deleted with proper closes. Thanks for your efforts, Jc37. Next time, stick to policy rather than emotions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey! an actual assessment : )

  Just to clarify something quick - no emotions involved here. If I were allowed to assess a close based upon personal whim, I would say that I really could care less if this is kept or deleted. As I said somewhere else, I think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

  But anyway back to the real world, and closing by consensus and policy and such...

  I don't think I disagree with you about the application of BLPTALK. It's a fair argument. But despite the picture that some are trying to paint, I was actually attempting to include as much of what was consensus in/of the discussions as was possible. And throughout, many of the comments conveyed the idea that this was satire/parody/homage/whatever to Giacomo's creation of User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair, and "making fun of" him. (And to a lesser extent, Rlevse).

  And there was enough there (including your comments there) I felt, to endorse a G10 based upon disparagement. (Also, "speedy" in this case is somewhat of a misnomer. The reason I was even at MfD closing, was due to MfD being backlogged - saw Smokey Joe's comment on my watchlist, and went to help out.)

  As for your G4 thought, I dunno about that. According to my close, the second page was deleted as a duplicate (not a recreation), and that the criteria that applied to a applied equally to b. This discussion about G4 came up here at the DRV.

  If you want to be technical, the talk pages (the original and the copy) were both deleted as G8. (see the logs)

  So I suppose if we really want to stay focused only on the talk page nommed in this DRV (which is the copy), very few of the "votes" here (for or against) comment on this being a G8 deletion. (Including yours - though please feel free to clarify.)

  As for the restorations, as noted on my talk page, I restored them due to a good faithed request that they be visible during the arbcom elections. I didn't edit them at all, but I think you're right about the MfD template. I'll go ahead and remove it.

  Thanks for your comments : ) - jc37 02:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The page was not an attack page, certainly not to the extent that it was speediable in the face of an MfD that didn't conclude it was an attack page. Although I think it borders on nonsense, it does not disparage so much as raise critical commentary relvent to the project. This critical comment, although obscure and perhaps only understandable if you explore the undercurrents, also precludes G10 from applying. The fact that Rlevse remains an anonymous pseudonym reduces the level of concern over any "attack", even if substantiated. The fact that Rlevse was a sudden departure bureacrat arbiter means that presumption should fall on the side of not deleting, for the sake of openness. To the extent that there are some less-than-ideal statements, they can be modified by editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry if I seem ungrateful for jc37 in clearing the backlog. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries whatsoever. Please don't think twice about it.

  I think that addressing the question of whether User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair was an attack page is worthy of DRV to determine. In particular the idea of whether disparagement by humour qualifies as disparagement. And whether such disparagement should be considered "mild". And whether "mild disparagement" should be considered G10. And further, the assessmet of the the question concerning BLPTALK and whether it applies.

  I welcome the discussion.

  The problem of course is that while all the pages were considered together, due to MfD having them listed as on two separate pages, but I closed them "together", this DRV only nommed one page, and a copy of a talk page at that. Hence much confusion.

  Which page were you referring to above, so that I might directly respond? - jc37 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that disparagement by humour does qualify as disparagement. It can even be worse.

  Mild disparagement would have to be weighed against other purposes of the page.

  For this page, I don't think it is even mildly disparaging for the person, because it is not seriously disparaging of the person. To the extent that a page disparages actions or events, without getting personal, I think it acceptable.

  I would prefer to only comment on the content, with the copy being a red herring that some of us have chased in parallel. G4/G8 technical questions are not important, just whether such content is acceptable or not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Death to poisonous crap. Those who produce it must be strongly encouraged to do it elsewhere if at all. --TS 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Poisonous? Maybe. Is there further reading somewhere about wiki-poisonous effects of such stuff, or evidence of past poisonings by the users involved? These are certainly reasons for deletion accepted at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment directed to jc37, but posted here because it's mildly relevant and for the sake of trying to keep things (mostly) in one place. jc37, in your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair you made two assertions. You then also copied those assertions to your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, and also you subsequently posted links to both those pages at several noticeboards.

The first statement I have in mind is "the author makes it clear below that that is the intent" (the intent being "to disparage" "their subject or some other entity" and the author being myself). I did not make any comment in the MfD that can be interpreted to mean that my intent when creating the page was to disparage an individual or entity. I therefore request that you withdraw this statement. As far as I can see, it is false and is presumably the result of a misunderstanding.

(I also do not agree that the original page is intended to disparage an individual. As its author, I am the only person who can comment authoritatively on the intention. The page comments - through humour - on a viewpoint or set of viewpoints. Not on an individual. It is totally in the spirit of commenting on content, not on the contributor.)

The second statement I have in mind is "The suggested intent to engage in substantial recreations". While it is indeed correct that Giano, unwisely in my view, threatened to repeatedly recreate a version of the page, I myself did not participate in such recreations nor did I indicate that I would do so. Your statement, in the context of closing an MfD in which you also make allegations about the intentions of the page author, might very easily be misunderstood to mean that I had suggested an intention on my part to recreate the page if deleted. I would therefore like you to clarify this.

(To avoid confusion; I have no objections, then or now, to the page being salted if it was, or is, deleted.)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OneSavings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that this article should not have been deleted. It was originally deleted for being an advertisement or promotion, but I have no connexion with the company concerned. When I raised the issue with the editor who deleted the page, he said that he did not believe that it would merit inclusion until the deal was completed, and that I should take the case to this page. As the deal has recently been approved, and the new entity, although inheriting the business of the Kent Reliance Building Society, is a separate company, which has said that it hopes to incorporate other societies in the future, and the deal, which has been covered by major British newspapers, is about to be finalised, I believe that the article should not have been deleted. Buybooks Marius (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from deleting admin As the deal has not been finalised, I do not feel that the company at the moment meets the criteria for inclusion, other than as a mention on the Kent Reliance Building Society (KRBS). Once KRBS has been changed to OneSavings, then that article could be renamed and more information added about OneSavings. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no doubt merit in that view, but that's not the reason given for deletion nor is it a reason for speedy deletion. I'm not pretending to be pure or anything - I almost always find myself expanding the boundaries of G11 during a hard session of CSD deletions. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore. I don't see the G11 in this. The article is just a bland narrative of facts. There appears to be potential here: a Financial Times article[2] and the Telegraph.[3]. It might be more appropriate to merge the content into Kent Reliance Building Society but that's something that requires discussion as it involves some complexities. The long and the short of it is - unless I'm missing some implicitly promotional material - that I don't think G11 or any other speedy deletion criteria applied (eg A7) so deletion should go through a discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting admin after restoration Having had a break from Wikipedia for a few hours, I decided to look again at the article. Buybooks Marius and Mkativerata are both correct - this should not have been speedily deleted. I feel that at the moment, it might be more appropriate to merge it with KRBS, but that is indeed a whole different discussion, which I will leave for others! I have restored the article, and offer my apologies to Buybooks Marius. As Mkativerata implies above, I had dealt with a lot of CSD deletions to clear the backlog, and made a mistake on this one! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Endorse Banned users are banned for persistent violations of community norms. The community's decision is "this person cannot be trusted to edit on this project". G5 is discretionary - an administrator can of course decide not to delete an article even if it was created by a banned user and the community can overturn a valid G5 here. But we should be very wary about interfering with an administrator's discretion to delete under G5. Especially when the reason for the ban goes to content policy violations (as opposed to, say, incivility). If a G5 is refused or overturned, the administrator who does so must take personal responsibility for ensuring that the article or file is policy compliant. I can see a lot of argument at MuZemike's talk page but what I don't see is anyone willing to put their hand up to vouch for the content they argue should be restored.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Banned means banned, period. T. Canens (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - History of The Sly Old Cat has been undeleted since the recreation was from a cache, in order to satisfy the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA and GFDL. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There's a particularly disturbing side to the notion of banning an editor but then keeping their edits because we deem they come in handy. Deletion was well within the admin's discretion. Further, policy allows for summary deletion of content contributed by known repeat offenders in violation of WP:C, and every contribution made by them could absolutely be subjected to indiscriminate deletion on these grounds alone. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the basis of this "belligerent opposition" MuZemike mentions, please? This is hard to analyse without knowing the specific grounds on which someone is (apparently) complaining.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a topic at User talk:MuZemike from the user who restored The Sly Old Cat. I am not sure this is what MuZemike referred to as "belligerent" though. Siawase (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's everything, then let's snow endorse MuZemike's actions and close the DRV now. There's no credible or even tenable argument that MuZemike's actions were wrong.—S Marshall T/C 20:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This user has proven again and again that they and their contributions are more time than they're worth and a net negative to the project. In addition there is little value in restoring their articles anyway, as they are littered with copyvios, so in most cases it's more work to carefully sift through them than to just recreate them from scratch. Siawase (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good use of admin discretion, entirely supported by policy. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and snow close. I'm not a real fan of the policy used (I hate to see good material get deleted) but A) it is policy and B) the user in question has a history of copyright problems. It's got to go. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question-Does Peter Rabbit's Painting Book which was(or maybe not) a GA suffer from copyvio. Several of the deleted articles also went through DYK...is it possible that they may not have copyvio? Just to note, these deletions have created several red links in {{Beatrix Potter}}.Smallman12q (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles by ItsLassieTime and socks have gone through DYK, GA and FA and still had copyvios in them, so odds are very slim that any of those articles are completely free of copyvio. Most (all?) of the articles that have been checked so far have had extensive copyvios. Siawase (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is it O.K. if I (or any other "safe" user) can go ahead and re-create some of those from scratch? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. In fact it would be wonderful! Hobit (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone please check the edit history of Peter Rabbit's Painting Book? Was the banned editor the only/main editor? Hobit (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some copyedits and minor changes by others, but judging by the size of the revisions, they are not significant. T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]