Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 14

14 November 2011

Wikipedia:Run to Mommy

Wikipedia:Run to Mommy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted out-of-process by unilateral admin action while discussion was ongoing. At the time of deletion, debate was approximately 50-50 as to whether deletion was appropriate, indicating a lack of consensus and disagreement that the page was unambiguously inappropriate, as asserted by the deleting admin. The deleting admin deleted the page after !voting delete, invoking WP:BOLD but a) demanding consensus for re-creation (where except in BLP cases lack of consensus means page is kept by default) and b) failing to follow the BRD process when the page was re-created, instead deleting it out-of-process again and salting. There was no unambiguous policy-based reason for out-of-process deletion (another editor, not the admin, asserted that G10 applies, which is dubious because of the "serves no other purpose" clause and because of the lack of unambiguous attack). I've no desire to rehash the entire deletion discussion here, but I do believe that it should be allowed to proceed to whatever consensus the community decides. I have asked the deleting admin to reconsider his deletion and he has declined to do so Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Despite my light-hearted comment at the RfD, this was pretty obviously created simply to knock WQA users down a peg, so G10 does indeed apply. If there's another reason for the redirect's existence, I'd love to hear it. 28bytes (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• To my mind, it's not so much a comment on the users involved as it is general social commentary - similar to WP:PITCHFORKS. The title could also potentially be used for an essay, but that would also require the page be created in some form. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• The redirect was an implicit statement that if you report someone to WQA, you are a big baby. Which, true or not, has a much higher derision-to-wit ratio than WP:PITCHFORKS. If it redirected to an essay, that'd be a different kettle of hammers. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• And changing where it redirected to is a matter for its talkpage, not for unilateral out-of-process deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. Should we have that redirect? Probably not. Was there a good reason to disrupt the normal process though? No, not at all, it only created much, much more drama than letting the deletion discussion run its course could ever have done. This was not a G10 speedy candidate, not every negative or uncivil comment (or redirect) is a personal attack. User:Our God may be considered an insult to all believers in God (Allah, Jahweh, ...), but it has happily existed for nearly two years. Just have a 7 day discussion, and close it then as whatever the consensus decides, without all the additional fuss and drama. Fram (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• DRV regulars will be unsurprised when I mention FairProcess here. My position in these cases is always that not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. Wikipedia's an exercise in collaborative encyclopaedia-building, and the "collaborative" part of that is important. The best way to drive away our members is to make summary decisions that deny them a voice.

  Personally, I don't see any point in that redirect, but the community has not given administrators very much latitude to perform summary deletions at all. We expect that deletions will only take place where certain strictly-defined deletion criteria are met, a prod has expired, or there is a proper consensus in favour of deletion. None of these things obtained. And one other point too: DRV's role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and it clearly wasn't. DRV has always taken a very dim view of "IAR speedy deletions" accordingly.

  In other words, overturn per Fram. Let's have a proper discussion that lasts the full 168 hours with everyone getting their say, so that this redirect can be deleted properly.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - such an attack creation is unworthy of any discussion at all - its close enough to a WP:G10 to be a reasonable rationale - speedy delete and salt - endorse. Even this deletion review for a week of comments is a waste of discussion and time (there is a huge backlog of copyright violations that is ignored) and then another week/ten days at discussion, three more weeks divisive discussion about an attack redirect - and you don't even support its existence - Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Who are you addressing that last comment to? Assuming it's me, I do in fact support its existence - not because I feel everyone at WQA should be attacked, as I don't believe that that's what this redirect does, but because it's a fairly accurate description of some of the behaviour related to WQA. An argument could also be made to redirect this elsewhere, but that argument requires the page to be undeleted. Nevertheless, those are arguments better addressed via RfD. Had this redirect not been deleted out-of-process, there would have been only one week of discussion necessary there to reach consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Should we have that redirect? Probably not." .and.. "Personally, I don't see any point in that redirect" - No it wasn't directed at you. A moments discussion of an attack creation is unworthy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion It was an attack page, hence speedyable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• G10 requires that it serves no other purpose; in this case, I would argue that it does. I would also argue that it isn't a clear attack. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• You could argue it, but you would be incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• And why is my interpretation less correct than yours? It's not a clear-cut attack, and therefore whether it's an attack at all is a matter of opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Who runs to mommy? Babies. What is this redirect implying about people who post to WQA?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Babies can't run, and they're not the only ones with mothers. By linking posters at WQA directly with babies, you're the one implying things about them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn out of process deletion. Satire is not necessarily an attack. Shocking bad form by the deleting admin who voted "strong delete" before deleting it three minutes later. Admin should have the tools removed and once he is familiar with community standards of approppriate admin behaviour be asked to stand at RfA to earn the trust of the community. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, because one thing we need here is even more ways to belittle our fellow editors. --Conti|✉ 20:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn- Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial and unambiguous cases. This is neither. There is enough debate over whether it actually is an attack page and whether the title is useful in some other way to take G10 off the table. From past MfDs it is established that even long tirades which attack the character and motivations of a clearly identifiable group of editors are OK, so long as they don't name names. This one, which just pokes gentle fun at the tone of one of our notice boards and doesn't mention any editors in particular, is pretty tame in comparison. Reyk _YO! 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Gentle fun"? I'm not sure that description really applies here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• It does. Reyk _YO! 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn whilst I agree the redirect was not appropriate speedy deletion was not appropriate either. The page did not meet any speedy deletion criterion and Jimbo did not claim that it did. I don't think this falls under G10 since satire is not necessarily an attack and since it is a criticism of part of the project. The deleting admin had previously commented in the discussion (which was far from clear-cut), which means the deletion violated WP:INVOLVED as well. Hut 8.5 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary provocative. Gerardw (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't a delete/keep !vote. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, as User:Gerardw is the third most active contributor to the dispute issues at the noticeboard that is the target of this redirect, with 784 contributions to resolving disputes there, (783 more than you) - I think he, as one of the targeted contributors of this demeaning redirect, has a right to let his beneficial contributions to the noticeboard do his talking for him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't make his comment any more on-topic. Nor yours. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse under G10. (Not to mention that perhaps User talk:Jimbo_Wales would be a more appropriate target) eldamorie (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Given that he's male, Wikipedia:Run to Daddy would likely be a more appropriate redirect for that page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• note - the opener of this deletion review has during it, now created the redirect WP:Run to Daddy - as a redirect to Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo - this creation reveals this whole pointy issue for what it is - worthless and pointy - this should now be closed as worthless disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, this should be interesting. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really, we have had it all today, attacking redirects, attacking templates. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn and resume RFD discussion. Not because I think the redirect is beneficial, but because I really do not think it should have been speedied when there was an active discussion going on with no consensus to do so. Before someone says something about "process for process sake" (I am sure there's an essay about that which someone will happily quote at me), I am in favor of resuming the deletion discussion (at which I will probably recommend it be deleted) because I think having his decision overturned here would be a useful message to Jimbo, and would perhaps discourage him from making similar disruptive unilateral decisions in the future. All of this drama would not have happened if he had chosen to trust/respect the community. If he had run across this redirect on his own, and speedied it, I would not have cared; but seeing that there was an active discussion with no consensus (yet), this supervote was a slap in the face of those participating in the discussion. And suggesting that this discussion should take place at WT:WQA shows a disappointing willingness to engage in gamesmanship. Redirect discussions belong at RFD. If Jimbo wants everyone to love and respect each other, we should start by respecting the people that were discussing this.

  So yes, as dumb as it might sound, I recommend overturning, undeleting, and continuing the RFD discussion, during which I hope the decision will be to delete. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion It's perfectly reasonable to speedy delete a redirect that was created for the purpose of belittling other editors. Peacock (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn - Undelete and return to the discussion that had already started. Then allow the community Jimbo "trusts" so much make the correct decision for the community whatever that decision is. His unilateral deletion makes a mockery of "Wikipedia is yours, I trust you" and is a slap in the face of the editors and admins who had already taken part in the RfD. Jimbo, just like any other admin, used his tools to get his own away. Any other sysop who did that would run the chance of getting desysopped pretty smartish. Also, who decided that "run to mommy" is demeaning? It's not if you don't use it. Some editors may feel comforted at the thought of running to their mum. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and return to RfD. This did not meet any speedy deletion criterion because by definition speedy deletions must be uncontroversial and pages must unambiguously meet one or more criteria. If there is an ongoing deletion discussion in which one or more users in good standing have expressed a good faith !vote to keep, then the page can not unambiguously meet any criterion (with the exception of legal issues, of which there were none here. The speedy deletion was therefore out of process. Every out of process speedy deletion harms the project, and it harms it more so than this redirect ever could. As someone who is likely to close a relisted RfD, I should point out here that I am neutral about whether the redirect is good or bad, but I firmly believe the question is for a consensus of editors at RfD to decide, not one administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse I suppose there was some drama that I missed behind the creation of this redirect (and WP:Run to Daddy), but whatever it was, creating redirects that can only be used to attack those participating in a process that is part of Wikipedia is not helpful. It is quite reasonable to speedy delete such judgment failures. The appeals to bureaucracy above ("Every out of process speedy deletion harms the project") may be useful somewhere, but not when we are discussing a redirect intended to deride WQA. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• MeatballWiki has a lot to say about what you're calling "bureaucracy". In MeatballWiki thinking, a summary deletion of this kind is called a BackRoomDecision. A user with special privileges decides that he knows best, summarily terminates the discussion, implements his decision in despite of the discussion, and then moves on. It's a bruising, damaging thing to do, because it appears so arbitrary and because it rides roughshod over what other, apparently good faith users were saying. We have a process for a reason. The optimum outcome isn't just to delete the redirect, it's to delete the redirect with a minimum of bad feeling.

  Besides, when an admin !votes for deletion and then summarily deletes on his own authority three minutes later, that's simply not to be borne. I really can't see DRV supporting that kind of thing under any circumstances at all.—S Marshall T/C 01:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Applying the rules that protect the project from admins deleting anything they personally don't like just because they don't like it is not an appeal to bureaucracy any more than prosecuting someone for ignoring a law that stops them doing what they want is. You describe the redirect as "intended to deride WQA", if that were unambiguously true then it would have been legitimately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G10. However, several editors in good standing believe that the redirect has other uses (e.g. satire has been quoted above). In circumstances like this, the Wikipedia way is to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS about whether it should be kept or deleted, not delete it anyway because you don't like it. The "justification" for speedy deleting this out of process was that it is "Inappropriate and offensive; not welcoming to new editors" - I can think of nothing more inappropriate, offensive and unwelcoming to new editors than speedy deleting something while saying "the rules don't apply to me", which is exactly what has happened here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn exactly per Floquenbeam. It is not at all lost on me that had this been done by another admin, we would be talking about desysopping. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn per Fram MurfleMan (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and resume RfD A G10 speedy does not trump an ongoing community discussion, not even from Jimbo. While I think the result is reasonable, I think the community's obligation to decide for itself what constitutes an attack page through the discussion that was already ongoing is more important. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - If this has been done by any other admin, nobody would have cared. Anyone who noticed would have seen it as consistent with the spirit behind WP:IAR. We've all seen deletion discussions with conflicting "votes" cut off by speedy deletions before. Deli nk (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • By admins who first had !voted in the discussion? No, I can't really say that I have seen such deletion discussions which didn't get overturned at DRV or caused more drama. Fram (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)