Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• QZ Deletion dispute

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

The deletion of an article about a 16-year-old Chinese boy does not reflect our policies, and there is no consensus for deletion, nor any policy that requires deletion. Furthermore, the deletion of the article is of the result of numerous wheel wars, assumptions of bad faith by users involved in the dispute, and an inability of involved administrators to allow a consensus to be formed.

Desired outcome

• Specific admins and users held accountable for wheel warring tactics.
• The allowance of a consensus to be reached regarding the article (per the first DRV, there is not currently a valid AfD to point to)
• Specific users held accountable for their incivility during the discussions

Description

On 4 May, an article about a Chinese person who became famous for the web meme his appearance inspired and he himself cultivated, was nominated for deletion.[1] After the requisite five day period, the discussion was closed as delete by Daniel (talk · contribs) (known at the time by his sig as Daniel Bryant, has changed his name in the period since),[2] but later re-opened by Bryant following an appeal.[3] Drini (talk · contribs) closed the discussion again not too long after as delete, citing that the meme might be notable, but the kid isn't.[4] This was appealed at deletion review on 13 May, and eventually overturned by Xoloz (talk · contribs) on the grounds that the subject met all the relevant policies (having multiple reliable sources, the cornerstone of inclusion - one user put the rate of sourcing at 1.7 refs/sentence[5]), and relisted the article on AfD.[6] This discussion was quickly responded to by a number of people before being closed by thebainer (talk · contribs) less than an hour after the relisting.[7] I then nominated it for deletion review[8] following an appeal to thebainer[9] which was declined. This is where the issues began, over the course of around 24 hours:

• Speedily closed by JzG (talk · contribs), I reverted.
• Speedily closed by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs), I reverted.
• Speedily closed by Drini.
• New review by DESiegel (talk · contribs).
• Removed as "silly" by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs), not even closed. Reversed by DESiegel.
• Speedily closed by Doc glasgow ("not twice in one day"), reversed by Matthew (talk · contribs).
• Closed by Mbimmler (talk · contribs) ("properly closed DRV"), Reverted by The Evil Spartan (talk · contribs).
• Closed by JzG, reverted by The Evil Spartan.
• Speedy closed by Jc37 (talk · contribs), later reversed as an error.
• Speedily closed by Mbimmler (talk · contribs) ("due to consensus"), reverted by Prolog (talk · contribs).
• Speedy closed by Viridae (talk · contribs), AfD opened.
• AfD closed by Nick (talk · contribs) four hours later, citing the alleged previous consensus.
• Viridae (talk · contribs) reopened the AfD, which was then re-closed by Doc glasgow. The page was then deleted by Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) with the summary "This is deleted. No restorations. No full course AfDs. No process or politics. Human decency. BLP. The end," all points very much under debate and discussion.
• I attempt to bring this situation to ArbCom, declined as premature because an RfC has let to occur.
• I attempt to try DRV one last time, closed by JzG with the closing summary of "trolling"

The discussion spilled over to a number of project pages, talk pages, and userpages. It's emblematic of the general situation the project is currently encountering regarding the actual role of deletion review, the ability of administrators to use their abilities to shut down useful discussion, and the inability to have a consistent, clear appeals process, without even getting into the specifics of user conduct, which is highlighted by the numerous case of incivility and lack of good faith toward contributors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by commentary below mine.

There was no process problem with the first AfD or the first DRV. The first AfD was properly closed on process grounds, but the first DRV properly noted that there were issues with the result. The article has yet to get a fair re-hearing per the last proper DRV.

There are many things that should be looked at here - the role of deletion review, the ability for administrators to accurately interpret discussions, whether a group of editors can choose to willfully ignore the policies laid out by a wider consensus by the greater community, the application of WP:BLP in regards to subjects who participate in their own fame, and the closing of discussions early, perhaps relevant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. This is about behavior, about process, about mechanisms, and about content, no matter what anyone else would like to frame it as.

The list of people above are simply people who were involved in the closing/unclosing/deleting/undeleting that I found - anyone extra can be added as they wish. I'd imagine that can be sorted out during the proceedings, but at no point and I saying some of the involved parties are more "guilty" than others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Too many diffs to list, so I will use entire discussions where applicable.

1. First deletion discussion
2. Second deletion discussion
3. Third deletion discussion
4. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 13
5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18
6. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 21
7. [10]
8. [11]
9. [12]
10. ANI discussion

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review
2. Wikipedia:Civility
3. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
4. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
5. Wikipedia:Wheel war
6. Wikipedia:Consensus
7. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
8. Wikipedia:Notability (people)
9. Wikipedia:Notability (web)
10. Wikipedia:Notability
11. Wikipedia:Deletion process
12. Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
13. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
14. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
15. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
16. Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles
17. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

See links above regarding the ArbCom case, the discussions at AN/I, and there are plenty of talk page links, including but not limited to the following: ([13] [14] [15] [16])

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
2. The Evil Spartan 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC), though I despair of ever having entered into this quagmire.
3. Viridae^Talk 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Prolog 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

2. -N 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC), not involved, but I think the process wonkery here is excessive.
3. — MichaelLinnear 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Response by Doc glasgow

Process is more important than product. Articles about fat Chinese kids who get mocked on websites belong in serious reference works — and wars of attrition are a good way of ensuring they stay. This is Jeff-opedia, however…

…Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Doc^g 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Common sense prevails. Sean William 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
3. --MONGO 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
5. --≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Benn Newman 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Cbrown1023 talk 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by BigDT (talk · contribs)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This whole thing is stupid. It's time to move on with life. --BigDT 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Doc^g 23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
2. --Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
3. -- ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
4. This comment wins the internet. – Steel 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Aye. WjBscribe 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
6. I'd endorse this twice if I could. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Hell yeah! // Pilotguy hold short 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Benn Newman 23:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
10. badlydrawnjeff talk 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Agreed, but there are reasons why we can't.
11. Absolutely. It's too bad that Jeff feels he cannot simply move on. It's a minor Internet meme. It's not going to kill that kid in Africa if he doesn't know about it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
12. You said it. I can't believe people are arguing over such a trivial thing. Jeff, please withdraw this RfC, nuke the article, and let's all move on. Save our arguments for topics that matter. Raymond Arritt 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Amen. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Sean William 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by David Fuchs (talk · contribs)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Of course I'm proll'y going to get yelled at for saying so, this dispute appears to have less to do with a minor internet celeb and more what individual admins think Wikipedia should/shouldn't be. Doc especially appears to harbor some resentment or at least slight hostility towards Jeff, and I believe that nothing will really come out of it simply because those involved would rather be obstinate rather than get things solved and admit they might be wrong. --David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Iamunknown 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC) No yelling from me :-P
2. badlydrawnjeff talk 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Prolog 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
4. -N 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
5. --Doc^g 23:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC) This is about what Wikipedia should(n't) be - and I see lots of 'obstinacy' (although I do actually like Jeff)
6. --Mister.Manticore 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (though I hope folks aren't going to be so obstinate)
7. --JJay 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note (since I've been named) I rather like Jeff, actually.--Doc^g 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note I said 'appears', Doc. I cannot pretend to fathom what goes on in your brain, or anyone else's. Sorry that I miscast you, I'm just going by your comments. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution by N

1. Everyone shakes hands and comes to a Wikipedia:Truce.
2. Everyone is excused for their prior behavior, be it wheel warring, closing discussions early, incivility, whatever. We can WP:AGF that people were acting in the heat of the moment, but that they believed they were bettering the Wikipedia project.
3. An AfD be allowed to run for the full 5 days where WP:BLP and other issues relevant to the article can be discussed.
4. No fighting over past conduct will be permitted at the AfD. The article is controversial enough, we shouldn't point fingers over past conduct. Besides, we already excused everyone for their past behavior.
5. The AfD will be closed by an admin who has not voted on, opened, re-opened, closed or re-closed any of the previous DRV's or AfD's.
6. If this solution is accepted, any further finger pointing will be treated as a violation of WP:Consensus and punished accordingly.

Users who endorse this solution (comments after names accepted):

1. Iamunknown 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, please, I just want a discussion without wheel-warring, where we as a community can decide if it is acceptable for the encyclopedia
2. badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Absolutely.
3. --Mister.Manticore 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC) though it should be clear that the Admin's decision can be disputed in DRV if appropriate. If said DRV does occur, it should operate under the same criteria.
   • Groan. No more process wonkery. By "same criteria" I assume you mean yet another fresh admin gets to close it? Maybe. But only if Jeff agrees not to be the one to start the DRV, no matter how much he disagrees with the AfD. -N 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, if Jeff objects to the outcome, he gets to make an objection on DRV, the same as anybody else, including those opposed to him. Otherwise to be fair, we'd have to exclude other people, and frankly, I don't want to do that. And I strongly oppose your characterization of this as process wonkery, that's the sort of thing that isn't helpful. To be honest, I'm not even sure this discussion should occur here. If you'd care to move your comment to the talk page, I'd not object to your moving my response here. Mister.Manticore 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Prolog 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) – "Where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted" and "Wikipedia community consensus" sound right to me.

Users who oppose this solution (comments after names accepted):

Outside view by Iamunknown

I have seen a few arguments for deleting this article: (1) it is unencyclopedia, (2) it is a BLP vio, (3) too many discussions have been devoted to it, so we should leave it be. Okay, then: (2) How is this a BLP vio? The individual is cashing in on his fame and is in multiple news outlets [17] [18] [19], (3) multiple discussions have been devoted to this because we can barely get in a discussion without it being speedy closed, and (1) well, that is for the community to decide in a consensual discussion, not at the speedy-closing hands of individual administrators.

So, can we please have an AfD, which was the result of the first DRV, that isn't speedy closed and isn't wheel-warred over? Thanks, Iamunknown 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -N 00:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
2. --Mister.Manticore 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
3. — MichaelLinnear 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Prolog 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
5. --JJay 01:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Ryan Postlethwaite

The article in question was a serious BLP violation, ignore all rules if you want, but there was no way this article could have been created without violating WP:BLP.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Ryan Postlethwaite 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by ObiterDicta

This is simply an attempt to refight the battle over Brian Peppers. However, this article was not nearly as objectionable as the Peppers article for several reasons (the kid had already given voluntary interviews, it was covered in the press, and it had at least a marginal relationship to two subjects WP should be covering: obesity in China and Internet censorship by the Chinese government). Nevertheless, it is not important to have an article on every Internet meme that comes along and this article could be filed under "not worth the trouble" if certain users did not view article deletions as a matter of winning and losing. This attitude is ultimately more destructive to Wikipedia than whether this particular article was kept or deleted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Jreferee

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I haven't looked into the topic or the dispute other than read some heated discussion on Badlydrawnjeff's talk page and do a little library research. Here's my 2 cents in hopes of easing some tensions. I found only about six news articles on the boy and I found five on Xiao Pang (without mention that of his name), which makes about eleven total. This is really a borderline case. I know the articles say he's famous (news articles on Chinese and African topics are written "differently" than in other places), but he is not famous enough to generate much English language press coverage. I probably could write a Wikipedia article on the topic (perhaps three or four paragraphs with each sentence referenced) that meets all Wikipedia process, but would not fault a consensus if it were deleted. As for "Little fatty", he's known as "Wee Fatty" (Scotland, Malaysia), "Fat Boy" (China), "Gordito" (Spain), "Little fatty" (USA). This does not help focus such an article. In short, the dispute originates from a borderline-valid Wikipedia topic that has some confusion as to the topic's nick name. Please keep this in mind. -- Jreferee 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Jreferee 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Mister.Manticore

As I see it, the steps in this situation were: 1. Article made. 2. Nominated for deletion. 3. Closed with Delete. 4. Re-opened by closing admin after request. 5. Second discussion closed early. And that's where the problems began. And ultimately, the problem was the closing of discussion early, and the almost hostile attitude to reviewing this decision. I think any action taken on Wikipedia should be open to reconsideration and review, early closures and speedy decisions while appropriate in some cases, are to be used lightly, not in cases where there's an obvious dispute. Consensus can't be reached by such summary action. Or by threatening blocks from people involved in the dispute. It is almost never going to be appropriate to block somebody with whom you are engaged in a dispute.

BLP is a non-issue here. If you want to say this person is of no consequence and unimportant, that's certainly valid. But there's no question there are valid, reputable sources who have reported on him. Unless BLP is modified to provide a more expansive protection of person's privacy, it should not be used to preemptively delete articles except in clear cases where the material is not available from a reliable source. Protecting people's feelings while important to BLP, does not necessarily trump all possibly negative material. Such things are not banned, and since doing so would run afoul of censorship, I do not imagine any such alteration would be made lightly. Mister.Manticore 00:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Mister.Manticore 00:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Amarkov

The calls to "move on" are unhelpful. The issue is no longer whether the article should be deleted, but the actions of various involved admins. Administrator misconduct issues must be resolved; saying "Oh, yes, some admins were bad, we don't want to hear about it anymore, go away" doesn't work. -01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -Amarkov moo! 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
2. --Mister.Manticore 01:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
3. --JJay 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution by Sean William

Two words: Brian Peppers. If anybody cares about this incident in six months to a year, then we'll rekindle the AFD and make (another) decision then. Right now, tempers are burning and grudges are wanting to be settled. Otherwise, lets get back to writing the encyclopedia instead of bickering over stupid topics like this. Sean William 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Interiot

Yes, fairness and process are important. Yes, WP:BLP is important. But it seems like there's a tendency for the smallest issues to generate the largest fights. Like the American/British spelling and AD/CE issues, we may remember this not for the outcome or the policy particulars, but for the size of the dispute. When a relatively unimportant issue blossoms into a large conflict, both positions are probably right, and it's the people who escalate the issue who are likely wrong. --Interiot 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. IAR is at least as disputed as this, yet it's never had all this happen over it. Is there something about insignificant things that makes people go crazy? -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside View

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.