Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:02, 5 March 2007

5 March 2007

Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal

Essjay

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

Early closure not warranted. Recent profile by the New York Times had already changed votes. AFD should run its course. RWR8189 07:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Premature close (under three days) by User talk:El C, no explanation of reasoning, close appears to go completely against policy-based Keep consensus. Deleting this given all the bad press also seems to be a WP:COI violation against WP itself, sweeping under the rug. would this be happening if it wasn't a famous wikipedian? this will turn into another Brandt level fight if he doesn't RV his close... - Denny 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per RWR. The NYT matter only came up in the AfD in the last hour or so before the premature closure and all editors who discussed it agreed that it mattered. Two editors changed their opinions based on the presence of the NYT source. (And expanding now that El C has given his close comment)- El C in his close comment states that "I think the consensus is that Wikipedians should protect one another from harm is absolutely pivotal" - there was no policy basis for this claim and I don't even see a consensus for this point in the AfD, so El C also deleted it for a highly questionable reason. His closing statement also did not at all take into account what this might look like to the general public or to the Misplaced Pages community. JoshuaZ 08:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. It was highly presumptous of El C to say that he didn't think the New York Times article will alter opinion when, less than an hour after the story hit, I changed my opinion from merge to keep. This was bad form on El C's part in closing this early immediately after extremely relevant new information came to light. The most egregious part of this is that El C claims to have been aware of the new information when he closed the AfD. (By the way, what was anecdotal about my previous comment?) —Doug Bell  07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Update based on El C's greatly expanded closing comment. Speedy overturn as there was an obvious conflict of interest in the closing. Instead of being based purely on the merits of an article and the arguments based on that issue, the early closing was apparently motivated by the fact that it was a story on a former contributor. That's clearly an inappropriate rationale for closing and the AfD should be relisted/reopened immediately. I don't believe El C has demonstrated in his closing comment that he has enough separation from the subject of the article to allow him to objectively close the AfD. —Doug Bell  09:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why you argue that I suffered from a conflict of interest;I find your above comment too vague and anectodal for me to entirely comprehend. El_C 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

      Here's a couple reasons:

      • "I think the consensus is that Wikipedians should protect one another from harm is absolutely pivotal."
      • "a Misplaced Pages with a human face does not (though, indeed, it could) mean a loss of objectivity, and that this is absolutely essential to foster a positive editing environment (and the productivity that emerges from this does make these sacrifices worthwhile)."

      Those statements, to me, indicate that issues outside the merits of the article held sway in your decision. Reasons due to your proximity to the subject of the article. (By the way, what was anecdotal about my previous comment?) —Doug Bell  10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

      • I think consensus reflected those views; I fail to see how that amounts to a conflict of interest. El_C 10:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The closing admin is supposed to sort out the arguments based on policy from those based on emotion or WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You didn't do that and instead appear to have allowed your own emotional views to enter into the decision. —Doug Bell  10:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Again, I believe that the arguments were sort out based on policy, not emotion. El_C 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh really? Since you said that you thought the consensus is that Wikipedians should protect one another from harm is absolutely pivotal, would you mind referring me to the content policy supporting your statement? —Doug Bell  11:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Not only was the closure premature, but since this is a breaking story the AfD itself was premature. I've seen many similar examples where deletion considerations were held off until the long-term scope of the story and the incident were more clear. Anchoress 07:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, parts of my closing comments seem to have been accidentally removed (by myself) — I'll try to recrate them right now, but it may take me a little while. Please view the closing rational in this context. El_C 07:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The admins desperately need to get their collective act together. I've seen more out-of-process actions, more wheel-warring, more discussionsless overturns, more power-plays, more selective-enforcements in the past two weeks than I have in the past two years put together. It's a collective disgrace. Now, overturn this. Derex 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there hasn't been too much admin conflict on this issue to this point. But this, I admit, was bad. —Doug Bell  08:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I said in the past two weeks. I've seen plenty overall, including a complaint lodged against you on ANI for it. Derex 08:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I suppose. I wouldn't call that incident with me wheel warring since a) the action was reversed following the required retraction from the blocked user, and b) no other admin expressed the view that the unblocking was improper. But to the point, my comment above was deliberately only in reference to the Essjay issue, and purposefully narrowed your statement to just that issue. —Doug Bell  08:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, and I object to a deliberate narrowing of a purposefully broad statement. There's a pattern, and it's not pretty, and this is but the most obvious case. As to the incident involving you, there was quite clearly criticism of you not discussing your action (which I happened to agree with otherwise) with the blocking admin. See "undiscussed overturns" in my lament. Derex 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • The narrowing was not to upset you, only to qualify my response. —Doug Bell  08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. El_C was very premature in closing the AfD, and didn't appear to take into account the changing consensus to keep. Lithorien 08:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as above. Any ambiguity about Essjay's notability or whatever has been cleared up by the NYT and yeah, the fast closure was nothing but spin and wheel warring, not helpful. Gwen Gale 08:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In fairness to El_C, no wheel-warring has occured. JoshuaZ 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not my experience but that's ok, the pith is this was closed way too early. Gwen Gale 08:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: as per Denny and RWR... this was definitely a premature close and seems to be against policy-based consensus. .V. 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen old AfD. Early closure only exacerbates the situation further. – Lantoka (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Pile-on overturn and reopen. Definitely premature, and the New York Times article has clear potential to change opinions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen. Contentious AFD and result is not clear yet. Should be allowed to run its course to make sure everyone who has something to say gets their say. A NYT article may also be a revelation affecting people's opinions on the article (though it has not affected mine). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per all above. Closer joins several other highly respected editors in acting out of understandable human sympathy for Essjay and appreciation for the good work he's done here without facing the fact that the reputation of the entire project is at stake.Proabivouac 08:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I still think that Ryan, as an individual, doesn't warrant an article, but even so this was an inappropriately early close. Misplaced Pages needs to get over this premature shutting down of discussion fad that has been going around. Dragons flight 08:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as a delete voter who still votes delete-merge, post-NYT. We don't need speedy closes of contentious AFDs at the moment. skip (t / c) 08:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • and reopen per Titoxd below. skip (t / c) 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, despite the close being more or less exactly what I'd called for. Attempting to stifle active, ongoing debate like this is counterproductive at best. —Cryptic 08:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn & reopen per Doug Bell. (First time I've been able to say those last three words in a while...) --tjstrf talk 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - a) speedy closes of contentious articles are the stuff a certain other website thrives on. b) the discussion was still ongoing with no consensus that would indicate a speedy action. Agathoclea 08:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks like El_C came back from a week-long Wikibreak just to close this AfD. link – Lantoka (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I underwent surgery and was in the hospital for over a week. I got discharged today (Jay can confirm this, I wrote to him about this prior to being admitted). Yes, this has definitely caught my attention. I'm sorry for the technical errors in providing the closing statement (I'm not using my own keyboard and this one, I found too late, seems to be semifunctional and glitchy). I am, however, disheartened by the calls to overturn in light of my expanded/restored closing statement which I feel answers most of the concenrs here. But I guess it didn't. Please give it a close read nonetheless and try to keep an open mind. Thx. El_C 09:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• People like and sympathize with Essjay; no reason to insinuate bad faith.Proabivouac 08:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  I hope it wasn't for that reason...that would be a serious conflict of interest. —Doug Bell  08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  (ec) Yes, I'd seen that and found it odd, but decided to assume good faith that there was no behind the scenes maneuvering involved. —Doug Bell  08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  I never meant to insinuate anything about behind the scenes maneauvering. I am concerned because the edit history suggests that El_C acted hastily. This entire ordeal has been extremely emotional and complex, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with somebody who's been absent the last week closing this AfD. – Lantoka (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  I did not feel that I acted hastily, though you are of course entitled to the opinion that I did. Naturally, I did not get a chance to participate in related discussions during the past week since I wasn't around, but I did spend considerable ti,e reviewing these today. El_C 10:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - If Misplaced Pages deletes this now, it will look like they're trying to cover this up. I'm not sure about notability, but for now, let's just let it stay, at least until this all blows over.--Azer Red Si? 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn immediately as an inappropriate and premature closure. Discussion was still ongoing, and additional coverage is coming to light, such as the New York Times article. RFerreira 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Is there enough WP:SNOW on the ground for the decision to be overturned and for the AFD to resume?--RWR8189 08:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't even think of SNOW here, it'll probably make things worse. Anyway, overturn, there was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  If there's little to no opposition here within the next 12 hours or so, I think WP:SNOW would be very appropriate. That's really the best way to minimize the reprecussions of closing this early. – Lantoka (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closing. The article wasn't about Essjay, it was about events recently unfolding, so I don't see what the big problem is. This really isn't a controversial thing, but people seem to be anticipating that it is. The same information can be covered, and in an article where readers are more likely to find it. It makes sense from an organizational standpoint. -- Ned Scott 09:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So you are closing because you agree with the close, not in regard to whether the reasoning was good, whether it was within process, whether it is healthy to end the debate now for the community, whether this might potentially reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages in the media, whether this was consistent with the consensus or whether the NYT article had potential to change the consensus?JoshuaZ 09:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Point taken. I guess it won't hurt to let it take a full run. -- Ned Scott 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse per WP:DIGNITY. Sam Blacketer 09:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So you are closing based on an essay written less than two weeks ago, not in regard to whether the reasoning was good, whether it was within process, whether it is healthy to end the debate now for the community, whether this might potentially reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages in the media, whether this was consistent with the consensus or whether the NYT article had potential to change the consensus?JoshuaZ 09:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I am offering an opinion on what should be done. My medical friends tell me that if a scab is picked at enough, it can be infected with gangrene. Sam Blacketer 09:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Really, and my medical friends tell me that rushing through a diagnosis is not a good idea. Instead of trite analogies let's actually discuss the matter. JoshuaZ 09:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close was premature, especially in light of the NYT article. Not that I'm thrilled to have an article about this. Haukur 09:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reopen. Purely on technical grounds, an "overturn" would make the circus restart with a five-day expiration date. That is not necessary. If there is something that is tried and true, is that early closures make a decision, no matter how good it is, stand on shakier ground. Titoxd 09:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm pretty sure everyone above means overturn the close, reopen the current debate. JoshuaZ 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't hurt to say that explicitly, and that's why I said so. Titoxd 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, very strongly. The NYT piece is the biggest coverage this thing has got so far, and El C closed the debate at the same time as that? No way, no way. It needs to run its course. It could become even more notable in the next few days. Everyking 09:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, reopen current AfD. I figured this would happen. Even though I still think the article should be deleted, the debate should be allowed to run the full period to avoid even more drama over this. WarpstarRider 09:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, perhaps reopen - not because I agree with the deletion, but closure has to be done properly. *sigh* wish we could do ONE controversial deletion debate in a calm, orderly, and systematic fashion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, recommend doing this forthwith, and censure El_C. Per my comment at the AFD - "there'll be one admin restraining himself, with his showboating and "groundbreaking" solution, who will close the discussion however he feels like it should be closed, and balls to us all. (redacted) We need this, if no other AFD, to run to rule. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Calls for censure should be directed to WP:DR or the Arbitration Committee. I'm surprised you'd use this venue to press for such measures. As well, your language seems needlessly inflammatory & hostile. El_C 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was, and I do apologise for that. I have redacted the unnecessary portion of my above comment. I wait to see whether you will similarly apologise and undo your own error of judgement. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Clear and obvious endorse deletion. Sources are not about the living individual (remember WP:BLP?) but about a single incident. Seemed like a valid close to me, and there was more than enough input to gauge the community mood. Also, WP:NOT a public lynching. I think I might have made that up, but I doubt Jimbo would disagree. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  The "lynching" comment illustrates everything that was wrong with the early closure. Instead of judging this as a content issue, you appear to be basing you opinion on the DRV on an emotional connection to the subject of the article. That's unfortunate. —Doug Bell  10:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, that's my judgment of the AfD itself, which included a lot of WP:BURNTHEWITCH style arguments. If there were multiple non-trivial sources about Ryan then we could have an article about Ryan, but there were not. There were multiple sources of differing degrees of triviality about the incident, so that goes in Criticism of Misplaced Pages, where an editorial judgment can be formed as to whether we need the RL name or not. But there is nothing on which to base a biography of Ryan, indeed I don't even know of a reliable source for the RL name, and the desire of a few people either to document our own navel lint or to put the boot into an admin with whom they've had a run-in should not affect that outcome. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I suppose those would be reasonable arguments if it was an article about Ryan. It's not. It's an article about the psuedonym "Essjay". We don't even know if the person behind Essjay is really named Ryan, and I think there's reason to doubt that he is. The article is about Essjay, the Misplaced Pages editor...whoever that might have been in RL. I'd certainly support renaming the article to Essjay scandal. —Doug Bell  10:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Same applies. Sources are about the incident. We don't need a picture of Essjay to rub his nose in it, and we don't need a separate article because we already have on on criticism of Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • "Criticism of Misplaced Pages? This isn't a criticism, so merging doesn't seem correct. This is, as you say, an incident. An event. AFAIK, Essjay was not overly critical of Misplaced Pages, so I don't follow your reasoning. There are multiple, non-trivial sources about the incident involving Essjay. As I said, rename it Essjay scandal, but don't delete it. —Doug Bell  11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I am very tired of unilateral out of process deletions by admins. Jokestress 10:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Well said Jokestess, you might imagine that non-admins are even more tired. WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, WP:SNOW: these are just the tools that only admins can use to enforce their own views. If a regular user tried to invoke these they are reverted and reprimanded within minutes. To much procedure is given to admins and too little oversight. Three strikes and your out - forever" should be the rule for admins. No edit-warring, wheel-warring, WP:CIVIL violations can be tolerated from admins. Oh wait, this policy is obviously needed but will never get in - admins! David Spart 11:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Random comment. Did anybody notice here that the article 1) is not deleted and 2) was never deleted (except for some silly vandal pages)? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Shhh. Yes, I had, but I figured that was just to save time in overturning the closure. —Doug Bell  11:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn - article is well cited and should be kept. It seems the Misplaced Pages administrators want to sweep this article under the rug....don't let them !! Wikinews Headphonos 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Premature, there is now coverage in numerous reputable sources. The fact that The New York Times did a piece on this means it is picking up speed in the media. Smee 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Mecha as Practical War Machines

Mecha as Practical War Machines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Please temporarily copy this to my user space or e-mail me an XML dump so I can fork this article. I am primarily looking for the versions and authors before the first AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mecha as Practical War Machines), since I have an XML dump of it from its recreation to the second AfD (located at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mecha as Practical War Machines (second nomination)). It was a fairly well-written article, but totally unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --Transfinite 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. User:Transfinite/Mecha as Practical War Machines. Only one usable revision, I think, so that's the one I've left it at, but the history is there. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fascist Wikipedians

Category:Fascist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore)

Someone keeps deleting my Category of Fascist Wikipedians. I am a fascist and I should be allowed to have a category. Why is no one deleting the Capitalist Wikipedians category? Why is my category being singled out? Someone keeps doing a "speedy delete" on it. It is absurd that same category can be deleted over and over without discussion simply because it has been deleted once in the past supposedly. Billy Ego 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: User recreated category at Category:Fascist Wikipedias – Qxz 03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I misspelled it there. Billy Ego 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to be a recreation of deleted content. I would suggest that it be returned to a deleted state. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it was deleted once before, that that is justification to continually delete it? What kind of logic is that? What do you mean when you say it is a "recreation of deleted content"? Why was it deleted in the first place? And how can the content possibly be the same? What was the content the first time it was deleted? The content now is my username. Did it exist before I created it? If so, my username wasn't there. What "content" are you talking about? It's a category, not an article. Billy Ego 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I speedy deleted this a few days ago as recreation of deleted material, per this UCFD discussion. Please read WP:CSD#G4. You are going to need a consensus here to allow recreation of the category before it should be made again. VegaDark 07:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as if it were not blindingly obvious. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So why have ? This is a political judgement that has no place in wikipedia. There could also be a Nazi Wikipedian cat if someone wanted it. Nobody is banned from editing here or describing themselves however they want to. David Spart 11:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Billy Ego makes a valid point that has not been refuted. This is not even in the article space. It may be used for vandalsim but so what. Even a fascist like him deserves to be catergorised. David Spart 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Just sounds like flamebait to me. The Kinslayer 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Communist Wikipedians